Subject: About RFC 1887

From: "marcelo bagnulo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:11:16 +0100

RFC 1887 states:
"4.3.2   Indirect Providers (Backbones)

   There does not at present appear to be a strong case for direct
   providers to take their address spaces from the the IPv6 space of an
   indirect provider (e.g., backbone). The benefit in routing data
   abstraction is relatively small. The number of direct providers today
   is in the tens and an order of magnitude increase would not cause an
   undue burden on the backbones.  Also, it may be expected that as time
   goes by there will be increased direct interconnection of the direct
   providers, leaf routing domains directly attached to the backbones,
   and international links directly attached to the providers. Under
   these circumstances, the distinction between direct and indirect
   providers may become blurred.

   An additional factor that discourages allocation of IPv6 addresses
   from a backbone prefix is that the backbones and their attached
   providers are perceived as being independent. Providers may take
   their long-haul service from one or more backbones, or may switch
   backbones should a more cost-effective service be provided elsewhere.
   Having IPv6 addresses derived from a backbone is inconsistent with
   the nature of the relationship."

Is this coherent with TLA and NLA asignment rules presented in RFC 2450 and
with RFC 2374?

Also, RFC 1887 proposes a multi-homing solution (solution 1) based on

"  One possible solution is for each multi-homed organization to obtain
   its IPv6 address space independently of the providers to which it is
   attached"

Is this solution compatible with RFC 2450 and RFC 2374?

Regards, marcelo

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:14:45 -0800

Marcelo,

The TLA/NLA rules are obsolete, as the RIRs are managing the space
without the TLA/NLA designations. See
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt as a replacement for RFC 2374.

The multi-6 working group is tasked with addressing appropriate
multi-homing mechanisms. While the requirements are still being worked
out, I have 2 drafts that discuss a possible approach and the policy
issues involved. See draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-01.txt &
draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-01.txt.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:11 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: About RFC 1887
>
>
> RFC 1887 states:

---

From: "marcelo bagnulo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:01:55 +0100

Tony,
> De: Tony Hain [mailto:[email-masked]]
>

draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt quotes RFC 2374 in

section 4. IANA considerations:

INTERNET PROTOCOL VERSION 6 ADDRESS SPACE

Global Unicast                        001            1/8     [RFC2374]

(However, [RFC2374] is not included in the references)

So, is there a new version for RFC 2374 that deprecates TLA/NLA asignment
rules or is just that reality is not following the RFCs?

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:49:23 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   Tony,

   

   
   
=> this was already discussed in the list: TLA/NLA should not be
referenced (i.e. constrain) by the (future) DS document about addressing
architecture.

[email-masked]

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:56:47 -0800

> rules or is just that reality is not following the RFCs?

The draft- series of documents are the work-in-progress for updating and
adding to the RFC series. Your question hints at a belief that all RFCs
contain rules and are consistent with each other. As you have found they
are not consistent, and only the ones noted as STD have firm rules.
Those documents in draft-standard or proposed-standard state contain
rules we believe are going to become firm, but still need real-world
development & deployment to verify they are correct. Look through RFC
2026 for a complete definition.

In addition to documents that define standard rules, there are
Informational documents like RFC 1887 that are intended to capture the
current thinking on specific topics. In particular RFC 1887 represents
some early thoughts about how address management might work from the
perspective of 7 years ago when the sudden and dramatic rise in
popularity of the Internet was just begining and excessive routing table
growth was an overriding concern. While routing table growth is still a
very real concern, we have collectively recognized that some of the
earlier assumptions about policy enforcement were invalid, so there are
new draft- series documents to update and bring the RFC series inline
with current thoughts.

Tony

---

From: "marcelo bagnulo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:17:08 +0100

Tony,

Thanks for explaining this to me.

> While routing table growth is still a

Where can I find current TLA/NLA allocation rules/ideas? (since RFC 2374
doesn´t represents current thoughts, right? and
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt does not mention it)

Regards, m

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:21:15 -0800

> draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt does not mention it)

as the ietf does not allocate address space, probably not around here.  you
might try places where addresses are allocated, i.e. the registries.  there
is 'active discussion' going on over in the registry community.

randy

---

From: "marcelo bagnulo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:39:21 +0100

> as the ietf does not allocate address space, probably not around

But the IETF does reccomend assignment policies and rules, right? such as
RFC 2374?

> is 'active discussion' going on over in the registry community.

Thanks,m

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:45:13 -0800

>> as the ietf does not allocate address space, probably not around
>> here.
> But the IETF does reccomend assignment policies and rules, right? 
> such as RFC 2374?

as folk here have been repeatedly saying, that is being replaced.

randy

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:00:58 -0800

> is 'active discussion' going on over in the registry community.

Specific pointers include:
http://www.arin.net/announcements/2001_policy_discuss.html#policy4 &
- Further work towards consensus on a global policy will continue via
discussions on the global IPv6 mailing list:
<[email-masked]>.

> But the IETF does reccomend assignment policies and rules,

The IETF will give architectural guidance on what makes sense, and
occasionally (like RFC 2374) will overstep the boundary between
architecture and policy. When that error is recognized the documents
will be updated to reflect the necessary changes.

Tony