This looks a typical double standard for me. You are willing to allow homenet (the network operator in this case is subscribers) to play semantic in their networks with the bits from 48 to 63, while you disallow ISPs to set the semantic bits in their networks with the bits from 20 to 48 or 56. You certainly have two theories for each of them.
To clarify myself, I am not really against the way giving bits for homenets to better organize their networks. For me, this looks like a variation of semantic prefix. If you have more concrete example how homenet use their bits. I guess I can include them as the third type of semantic prefix, besides ISP and enterprise. Cheers, Sheng On 3 June 2013 21:46, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > -- Sheng Jiang 蒋胜
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
