On Jun 3, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> Yes. A fine engineering solution for demonstration purposes, but not a >>> good solution for us to recommend for deployment in the long term. >>> Because it commits wide prefixes to sub-delegations, it wastes address >>> space profligately, and likely would require a /48 for a fairly trivial >>> subnetted homenet. >> You say that as if it would be a bad thing. >> I don't see a problem with it. > > IIRC, what started this conversation was the claim that wasting bits on > semantic identifiers was bad because it wasted address space. If you don't > think wasting address space is a problem, why are we even having this debate? > I guess it boils down to the definition of waste. I believe that making bits available for greater flexibility in consumer networking is a good use of bits. I believe that stealing bits from the consumer for purposes of allowing the provider to overload the IP address with yet more unrelated meaning (semantic identifiers) isn't a good idea even if it didn't involve stealing the bits from consumers. Owen
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
