RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ipv6 address format
Jeroen,
Jeroen Massar wrote: Stupid question
There are no stupid questions.
but are we still 'allowed' to call the Top Level Aggregators a TLA. Eg... 2001:db8::/32 is a TLA
No. The wording "TLA" has been deprecated entirely. The very notion does not exist anymore. See: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.t xt The only remnant is a 6bone "pTLA" but given the sunset date for the 6bone in 9 months as far as allocation goes time will take care of that one.
Or is there another more appropriate name for the prefixes that are allowed in the DFZ?
The replacement is LIR. Michel.
Hi, On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 06:18:45PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
Or is there another more appropriate name for the prefixes that are allowed in the DFZ? The replacement is LIR.
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... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 58485 (57742) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 06:18:45PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
Or is there another more appropriate name for the prefixes that are allowed in the DFZ? The replacement is LIR.
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...
And not every LIR has a (or multiple) prefixes yet from the RIRs. Btw from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#lir: 8<-------------------------------- 2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry is an IR that primarily assigns address space to the users of the network services that it provides. LIRs are generally ISPs whose customers are primarily End Users and possibly other ISPs. -------------------------------->8
From draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt: 8<-------------------------------- 2.5.4 Global Unicast Addresses
The general format for IPv6 global unicast addresses is as follows: | n bits | m bits | 128-n-m bits | +------------------------+-----------+----------------------------+ | global routing prefix | subnet ID | interface ID | +------------------------+-----------+----------------------------+ -------------------------------->8 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 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? Greets, Jeroen
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
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 even though I use it for my GRH project quite a lot simply because I don't have a better wording for it...
IMO, TLA is *just* fine. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Hi, | IMO, TLA is *just* fine. I definately agree. The term, and the fealing associated with it, fits the entities that are the highest level of aggregation for any given IPv6 address perfectly for me. I'll stick to calling the /32's and their 6bone /28 and /24 siblings "TLA" until there is another common term for it. I don't see the need to change it though, as opposed to SLA and NLA which I no longer use. -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment -----------------------------------------------
Excuse me while I delurk for a moment.
From: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>
From draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt: 8<-------------------------------- 2.5.4 Global Unicast Addresses
The general format for IPv6 global unicast addresses is as follows:
| n bits | m bits | 128-n-m bits | +------------------------+-----------+----------------------------+ | global routing prefix | subnet ID | interface ID | +------------------------+-----------+----------------------------+ -------------------------------->8
On my reading of the I-D the "global routing prefix" described above is not the prefix that appears in the default-free zone - the text in section 2.5 suggests that, as with IPv4 CIDR, different parts of the network will have different ideas about where the boundaries are within the prefix and the text immediately following that diagram says: ... the global routing prefix is a (typically hierarchically- structured) value assigned to a site (a cluster of subnets/links), the subnet ID is an identifier of a link within the site ... That suggests the "global routing prefix" shown above is the prefix a site and its immediate upstream know about but it could, at least in theory, be further aggregated between there and the default-free zone. Is that right or have I missed something obvious? Sam Wilson Infrastructure Services Division Computing Services, The University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
participants (6)
-
Gert Doering -
Jeroen Massar -
Michel Py -
Pekka Savola -
Pim van Pelt -
Sam.Wilson＠ed.ac.uk