Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-huston-ip6-iana-registry-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:54:27 -0000

On , [email-masked] (mailto:[email-masked]) wrote:

> As soon as the ULA draft is approved, FC00::/7 can also be marked as
> Reserved by IETF. 

I think it would make more sense, and would be in keeping with the
proposed format of the registry if it was marked as 'Unique Local
Unicast' under the 'Allocation' column, and the accompanying RFC noted
under the 'Reference' column.

Mat

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 18:25:53 +1100

>under the 'Reference' column.

This would be consistent with the intent of this draft --- once it is published
as an RFC

    Geoff

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:30:56 +0100

> This would be consistent with the intent of this draft --- once it is published

Geoff, what is your opinion on asking IANA to publish this prefix list
through their whois interface (whois.iana.net) which currently does
serve some domains like .int.

This would be useful for redirection purposes to the correct RIR or
simply finding out the RFC to which space this belongs to ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:26:42 +0200 (EET)

> simply finding out the RFC to which space this belongs to ;)

This would probably be bad idea, because every script in the world 
would be changed to query from the IANA whois, and they would get 
swamped.

I symphatize with this, but it would seem that it might significantly 
alter the IANA whois service requirements.. not something that can be 
done overnight.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:41:15 +0100

> would be changed to query from the IANA whois, and they would get 

Every "script in the world" also queries whois.{apnic|arin|ripe|
lacnic}.net now where is the difference with that. Also note that for
instance geektools have their own whois server which does exactly what
is proposed, but that is hardly an official source...

Notez bien that whois clients are already too smart and could easily
cache this information.

> alter the IANA whois service requirements.. not something that can be 

For what reason do they then run a whois server for .int ?
Nobody queries it ? :)

Another way for a whois client to find out who it needs to query could
of course also be to fetch http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-
space every time and parse it to find out where it needs to query...
Otherwise what is the reason for standardizing the format using the
proposed document!?

~400 bytes of whois output versus ~4kb of http traffic...

Also it does not have to be done overnight, but somewhere along the
lines of next year would be fine by me ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:34:51 +1100

>simply finding out the RFC to which space this belongs to ;)

I'm personally not sure about this Jeroen  - I would've thought the RIRs 
could construct  a comprehensive whois service  from their own data, if 
thats what  their community wants them to do.

This particular draft is concerned specifically with the text of the 
two  IPv6 address registries, and does not wander into the areas of modes 
of publication and the manner by which the registry may be queried.

regards,

    Geoff