stla registry db issue

[fink@es.net (Bob Fink)]

At 11:08 AM 12/22/99 +0900, =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCOzNLXE9CSScbKEI=?= wrote:
>From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
>Subject: Re: stla registry db issue
>
> > Kazu, that is exactly what I am saying. It is a serious error to
> > split a subTLA for subISPs. One ISP must get one subTLA. Never split
> > a subTLA between ISPs.  (The same applies to exchange points.)  If
> > you split subTLAs between ISPs, you create the IPv6 toxic waste
> > dump.
>
>In my understanding, the difference between TLA and sTLA is only
>scale. As TLA is to be split into NLAs, sTLA is to be split into NLAs.
>
>Nobody knows what is the best component/organization for TLAs and
>NLAs. However, in the current Internet model, TLA is big ISPs and NLA
>is medium ISPs.
>
>It seems to me that your opinion is incorrect.

In looking at the mail on this it seems that there is a confusion between 
you folk over what splitting the subTLA means, and you both have it right, 
but think the other is not understanding you. The /35 subTLA assigned by 
the RIR is intended to be split up to the right of the /35 (i.e., in the 
NLA space) for use by lower level providers, but not to the left of the /35 
(as this is part of the extended subTLA field the RIR is holding back for 
future use, unspecified for now).


Bob