>-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Chown [mailto:t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 3:11 PM >To: Sheng Jiang >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 30 May 2013, at 08:00, Sheng Jiang <jiangsh...@huawei.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree. That said, an ISP, enterprise or group of organisations can follow >>> whatever semantics they wish within their own borders. Just don't expect >>> anyone else to follow or use those semantics. What Sheng is proposing is >>> clearly stated as only being for interpretation between agreeing >>> organisations. >> >> Hi, Tim, >> >> It is exactly what the draft document. These semantics is only meaningful >locally within the assigning provider network. It may only be interpretation >between agreeing providers. >> >> Any efforts to add global or generic semantics to IP address is overload the >IP architecture and it bad direction, I agree. >> >>> I think people will do this type of thing, so an Informational document >>> discussing the pros and cons, and how semantics can be used, is probably a >>> good thing. Perhaps a "Potential Pitfalls" type section after the >"Potential >>> Benefits" section would balance the document a little better? >> >> Yes. We will do so in the future version. > >Good, and I think it's important to do so. George and Lorenzo's comments are >good starting points for that section. The potential privacy/information >leakage aspect is also worth capturing, should those addresses be seen >outside the organisation.
Thanks, Tim. The purpose of this document is not recommend or propose a good architecture. It is to document something that is going to exist and analyze it. The pitfalls is very important for a neutral analysis Cheers, Sheng >6rd is a good example of a scheme that typically requires a larger allocation >from the RIR purely because of the semantics used. But in some cases the >semantics need not require a larger allocation; we could include semantics in >a campus /48 for example. > >Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
