[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IESG review comments on ULA draft



Christian Huitema wrote:
>>      As a part of the IESG review, a member of the RIR community has
>>provided comments on the ULA draft.  I will posting those comments to
>>the mailing list as separate notes shortly.  As a part of that review,
>>Bob & I made the decision to split the ULA draft into two drafts.  One
>>draft discusses only the locally allocated addresses.  The second
> 
> draft
> 
>>discusses the centrally-allocated addresses.  This was done to allow
>>the locally-allocated addresses to move through the review process
>>without getting hung-up on comments/issues with the central allocation
>>scheme.
>>
>>      The comments to follow are focused on the central allocation of
> 
> ULA
> 
>>addresses.  So, the local allocation draft will continue through the
>>IESG review process.
> 
> 
> If the intent is to focus on locally assigned addresses, then there is a
> typo in the last paragraph of section 3.2:
> 
>    This document only allocates the prefix (FC00::/8) for centrally
>    assigned local IPv6 addresses.  The characteristics and technical
>    allocation requirements for centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses
>    will be defined in a separate document.
> 
> Obviously, this should be about locally assigned addresses...

I thought the same thing when I first read it.  However, it is correct
as written.  This spec only reserves the prefix for the centrally
allocated addresses.  The new draft defines the semantics for this
address range.  The goal was to keep the IANA considerations in one
document with respect to reserving/allocating the prefixes.

Regards,
Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------