Try "The length of the TLA field is fixed at a relatively small size so as to guarantee that the default-free routing table is certain not to exceed a size known to be technically feasible." If that is untrue, then we can't justify the fixed size. Brian Carpenter
-- Scott Bradner wrote:
Daniel said: I have seen some of this discussion. I am afraid I have seen no documented discussion revealing the reasoning behind fixing the TLA length and fixing it at 13 bits. Frankly I have been surprised by the sudden speed of the provider based addressing standardisation.
last year in regards to what is now RFC 2050 I asked the lawyers that do work for the IESG what restrictions in flexibility we (the IETF) have in the area of defining rules and technology that restricts ISP practices. I was told that the only time we can be restrictive is when there is no other technically reasonable option - I support Daniel here, if this field is to be restricted to a specific length then we must have very good technical reasons for doing so.
Scott -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------