On Jun 3, 2013, at 17:59 , Sheng Jiang <shengji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > No, I have no desire to recommend semantic usage for bits 48-63, either. I do want those bits to belong to the subscriber and not be hijacked by the provider. I was speaking in terms of likely automatic partitioning created by routers, not semantics. Remember, these routers will be like LEGOs in the future. The homenet user will expect to be able to arbitrarily plug them together and have stuff just work. That's not semantics... That's something else. > 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. I think you need to take a better look. To me, what I am suggesting in the homenet world has nothing to do with semantics (or if it does, the semantics are coincidental) and everything to do with topology. Owen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
