Jeroen / Gert,
Jeroen Massar wrote: Or is there another more appropriate name for the prefixes that are allowed in the DFZ?
Michel Py wrote: The replacement is LIR.
Gert Doering wrote: Which is quite ambiguous - a LIR usually doesn't mean "a /32 from 2001" but some legal entity with a given contractual status with a RIR...
True and there are other issues as pointed by Jeroen below; I have made this very point myself before. Since the address structure on the left of site topology is now handled by the RIRs (technically, everything that is right of the IID is RIR business, however RIRs have followed recommendations along the lines of RFC3177 for site topology) it is no up to the RIRs to come up with terminology to replace TLA (and NLA maybe).
Jeroen Massar wrote: And not every LIR has a (or multiple) prefixes yet from the RIRs.
True.
So should we actually be calling TLA's a GRP (Global Routing Prefix) ? I am currently using 'TLA' everywhere and I think it's quite appropriate as the prefixes are really the Top Level Aggregators. Mind you that Randy Bush also pointed it out to me at the last RIPE meeting and he is right, it is deprecated
No yet, actually. Addrarch still is in the pipe so on paper you are still fine but not for long.
even though I use it for my GRH project quite a lot simply because I don't have a better wording for it... So what is the correct wording for it? GRP?
Looks good to me and it does go nicely with the GRT (Global Routing Table) terminology that I have been using as a replacement for DFZ (there is no such thing as an IPv6 DFZ). Michel.