>> 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. >> >pretty much what I said at the mic... If this ever shows up in a >jsutification for a /18 or /24 vs a /26 at an RIR that's a really bad >thing imho.
Agree. The network providers should know they cannot get more addresses because they use their block for semantic, which lead to lower address utility rate. Will make this clear in the new section "potential pitfalls". Cheers, Sheng >> 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. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
