While it is true that any operator can do whatever they want, this
proposal is architecturally a bad way to achieve the kind of goals you
outline.
So I would oppose publishing even an informational RFC on how one might
do this.
As an example of the problems with this, you suggested that allocations
to enterprise would not change with this approach. That the enterprise
would receive a certain semantic, and would be allocated a certain /48
to match that. While this sounds attractive and harmless:
1) It is extremely unlike that a customer will fall into a single
"semantic" with any useful definition of semantic
2) You have argued that you can not use DSCP because they are not fine
enough grained. This means that you want to increase the routing
complexity by more than a factor of 64, which seems to be a VERY bad
idea for any operator infrastructure.
So even from a simple analysis, this seems somewhere between useless and
extremely dangerous.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
On 5/30/2013 3:00 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
...
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.
Cheers,
Sheng
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
