Hi, Duncan, Actually, you question is very detailed scenario in the approach. The answer is the provider still assign a /48 to an organization. But within the assigned /48, some bit (for example, bit no. 30~32) has some semantic (for example, need extra security processing) for the assigning provider. Then, when the provider received packets from such organizations (there are multiple enterprise has the same semantic and the same bit no. 30~32), it can treat accordingly.
Best regards, Sheng >-----Original Message----- >From: Duncan, Richard (Jeremy) [mailto:jeremy.dun...@salientfed.com] >Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:20 AM >To: Owen DeLong >Cc: Sheng Jiang; <v6...@ietf.org>; >draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than >locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 > >I tend to agree with Owen here. In fact, I am curious how an allocation >from a provider to a organization would look? Instead of following standard >issuing practices of a /48, are you suggesting the provider would issue >multiple /52s that follow functional categories (VoIP, management, etc)? Or >maybe I missed something? > > >010100110110010101101101011100000110010101110010001000000100011 >001101001 > >Jeremy Duncan >Senior Director, IPv6 Network Architect >Salient Federal Solutions, Inc. (Now including SGIS & Command Information >Inc.) >4000 Legato Road, Suite 600 >Fairfax, VA 22033 >Google Voice: 540.440.1193 >jeremy.dun...@salientfed.com > >Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > >Personally, I think this is an inherently bad idea. > >IP addresses need less overloading of semantics, not more. > >We already use IP addresses for two conflicting purposes… Topology locator >and End System Identifier. > >This overloading is at the heart of our current scaling issues with respect to >the routing table. While these issues are currently less critical than they >have >been in the past and will likely get quite a bit less critical in IPv6, that >is only >because we have given up a fair amount of functionality to preserve >scalability in this regard. > >If we did not have this overloading, then an entity could obtain a set of >end-system identifiers and keep them throughout their lifetime, regardless of >topological changes. Today, where the addresses are overloaded with both >semantics, we either have to force most entities to change their numbers >when they change topology or we face unsustainable growth in the routing >tables. > >The idea of adding more semantics to addressing rather than seeking to >reduce this overloading seems a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. > >Owen > >On May 29, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Sheng Jiang <jiangsh...@huawei.com> >wrote: > >> IP addresses are designed as topology locator, so that every packet can be >routed to its network destination. >> >> However, even in IPv4 era, some network operators have mapped their IP >address with certain semantic locally. These kind of mechanism explicitly >express the semantic properties of every packet. Consequently, these network >operators can inspect the properties of packets easily by mapping the >addresses back to semantic. >> >> Network operators, who have large IPv6 address space, may also choose to >embedded some semantics into IPv6 addresses by assigning additional >significance to specific bits within the prefix. >draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix documents a framework method that >network operations may use their addresses with embedded semantics. These >semantics bits are only meaningful within a single network, or group of >interconnected networks which share a common addressing policy. Based on >these embedded semantic bits in source/destination addresses, the network >operators can accordingly treat network packets differently and efficiently. >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 >> >> Could you please review this draft and comments? It will help the document >become more useful information to be shared. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Sheng >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:28 AM >>> To: Qiong Sun; Ian Farrer; Sheng Jiang; Boyang >>> Subject: New Version Notification for >>> draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03.txt >>> >>> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03.txt >>> has been successfully submitted by Sheng Jiang and posted to the >>> IETF repository. >>> >>> Filename: draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix >>> Revision: 03 >>> Title: A Framework for Semantic IPv6 Prefix >>> Creation date: 2013-05-28 >>> Group: Individual Submission >>> Number of pages: 19 >>> URL: >>> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03.txt >>> Status: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix >>> Htmlized: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 >>> Diff: >>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This document describes a framework method that network operations >>> may use their addresses. Network operators, who have large IPv6 >>> address space, may choose to embedded some semantics into IPv6 >>> addresses by assigning additional significance to specific bits >>> within the prefix. By embedded semantics into IPv6 prefixes, the >>> semantics of packets can be inspected easily. Routers and other >>> intermediary devices can easily apply relevant policies as required. >>> Packet-level differentiation can also enable flow-level and user- >>> level differentiation. Consequently, the network operators can >>> accordingly treat network packets differently and efficiently. The >>> management and maintenance of networks can be much simpler. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The IETF Secretariat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
