(IPng 4997) Re: Last Call: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture to Proposed Standard
Brian E Carpenter brian at hursley.ibm.com
Tue Dec 2 03:39:00 CET 1997
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 at sunroof.eng.sun.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------
[ lir-wg Archives ]