Subject: RE: Review request: draft-huston-ip6-iana-registry-01.txt

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:00:27 -0800

> The chairs would like to make everyone aware of the following draft:
> 
> draft-huston-ip6-iana-registry-01.txt
> 
> The draft sets forth some proposals for updating the IANA registry
> for IPv6 addresses.  Currently, the registry does not align with
> the existing IPv4 address registry or RFC 3513.  The authors request
> community review and comments.

Minor comment: it would be nice if the first table used a notation like
"0000::/8", "0800::/6" instead of the abbreviated notation (0::/8). This
would make the map easier to grasp.

Major comment: I can foresee several occasions where the IETF will want
to allocate an unicast address prefix for a specific purpose. Some are
fairly large event, allocating a large block, e.g. a /16 for 6to4, a /7
for ULA. The current registry management is adequate for these large
allocations. But 
some are very small events, allocating a /32 (e.g. for Teredo) or maybe
a /48 (e.g. for various special services). Which part of the registry
will we use for these small allocations? What is the procedure?

-- Christian Huitema

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:52:33 +1100

>would make the map easier to grasp.

thanks for this - I'll make this alteration in the next version of the draft.

>will we use for these small allocations? What is the procedure?

This particular draft does not look at the allocation procedures per se - 
but the intent of the draft would be to ensure that all IANA allocations 
are recorded in a uniform fashion in the registry in a format that is both 
clear and machine parseble.

Geoff