Re: (IPng 4997) Re: Last Call: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture to Proposed Standard
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 02:39:00 +0000
- Organization: IBM Internet Division
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@localhost
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
