>They are stealing from the consumer's flexibility to >provide (questionable) functionality to the provider.
What's the problem if the consumer get /48 as you want, and providers play their 28 bits (bit 20~47)? For me, the consumer flexibility looks more uncertain although I don't have much against it. Sheng On 3 June 2013 22:36, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Owen DeLong <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. > > > No, they are not. They are stealing from the consumer's flexibility to > provide (questionable) functionality to the provider. > > I am not saying that consumers should be able to spend bits like water. > I'm saying that consumers should get their intended 16 bits of flexibility. > No more, no less. If you said consumers should get /44s per end site > because they need additional flexibility, I'd be asking you to prove use > cases. But the original protocol design intended 16 bits of flexibility and > the address size was calculated to include that. > > As to what we should be talking about, we should, indeed be talking both > about why providers are doing these experiments and also why this type of > overloading of unrelated meaning onto address bits is an inherently bad > idea. > > Fortunately, we are talking about both of those things. > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
