On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: 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. But these arguments are mutually contradictory, since the bits are in fact making use of the added flexibility IPv6 gives to consumer networking. What you seem to be saying is that we need to preserve the ability of end-users to spend bits like water by stopping ISPs from spending them. Being an end-user, I have a lot of sympathy for your position, but I don't think this is something on which the IETF is likely to achieve a strong consensus, and that's okay. Whether you like semantic prefixes or not, they are something that ISPs are experimenting with, for reasons they think are valid. What we should be talking about is not whether they can do these experiments, but why they are doing them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
