Hi, Lorenzo, >As long as the RIRs are willing to give them enough address space to do so.
>If an ISP requested an IPv6 /10 from ARIN because they wanted to give every >customer a /48 and wanted to geocode the customer's subscriber ID into the >/48, then ARIN would do well to say, "no, sorry, that doesn't make sense". > IMO I think it should also state that although it is an IETF RFC, this model > is not necessarily a recommended model, and that RIRs are not obliged to > accept this type of address allocation as a justification for obtaining > larger address blocks than they would normally be able to obtain. Yes, there is no intension to change ARIN’s policy at all. ARIN should remain the current policy of assign IPv6 address block. But the network providers, who has already get address block, can choose to use the addresses with certain semantics. And no one, including ARIN can stop this. This is just one of the many ways providers may utility their addresses. >Lest someone not realize this, the draft should clearly state that embedding N >bits of semantics into IPv6 addresses causes the network to use 2^N times the >address space that it normally would. Yes, we will state the semantics will lower the address utilization ratio in the future update. However, it is not necessary as worse as 2^N times. For example, it there are 2 bits to separate different use types (say 4 different types), it actually only separate use address spaces into four different spaces. It does not limit the address space to be 1/4 of original space. Best regards, Sheng From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:48 PM To: Tim Chown Cc: Owen DeLong; <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 On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: I agree. That said, an ISP, enterprise or group of organisations can follow whatever semantics they wish within their own borders. As long as the RIRs are willing to give them enough address space to do so. If an ISP requested an IPv6 /10 from ARIN because they wanted to give every customer a /48 and wanted to geocode the customer's subscriber ID into the /48, then ARIN would do well to say, "no, sorry, that doesn't make sense". Lest someone not realize this, the draft should clearly state that embedding N bits of semantics into IPv6 addresses causes the network to use 2^N times the address space that it normally would. IMO I think it should also state that although it is an IETF RFC, this model is not necessarily a recommended model, and that RIRs are not obliged to accept this type of address allocation as a justification for obtaining larger address blocks than they would normally be able to obtain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
