stla registry db issue

[Brian E Carpenter]

"Kazu Yamamoto (山本和彦)" wrote:
> 
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
> Subject: Re: stla registry db issue
> 
> > My concern is that the way Kazu asked his question, with the concern
> > about frequent updates, did not seem compatible with the idea of
> > slow start and hierarchical aggregation. If we don't start with
> > habits that create aggressive aggregation, IPv6 routing will be in
> > deep trouble as it grows.
> 
> We never discuss routing problems. We are talking about issues on
> registry DB updates.

I know. My worry is that any errors in allocation policy will damage
aggregation in the routing tables, which as IPv4 proves is impossible to fix later.

> 
> > I also have a concern that if an operator is really an ISP, giving
> > them an NLA instead of a subTLA may be a problem until we have
> > proved how to do convenient renumbering. What happens when they want
> > to migrate away from using WIDE as their aggregator? (I realise that
> > this is a heretical thought, since the current rules on subTLAs are
> > more restrictive.)
> 
> This is also out of the scope of kenken's question.
> 
> Kenken asked how to eat an apple. You said it is not an orange.

Yes, I was confused. 

> 
> > However, I agree that Kazu is not describing a strict violation of
> > the RFCs.
> 
> I don't see *any* violation. Our activities are consistent to all
> RFCs, I believe.

I agree.

   Brian