I don't rule out anything. I state that the bits should be there so that automated topologies can be made to function in an arbitrary plug-and-play environment.
If it can be used for other purposes, that's fine, but I do not suggest that we should support those other purposes officially. OTOH, because of the first use case that I do feel we should continue to support officially, I do not support stealing those bits from the end user for the purposes of ISP semantic addressing. Owen On Jun 4, 2013, at 06:14 , Sheng Jiang <shengji...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do understand your hierarical allocation is only topology. But do you think > that's the only way subscriber, who has 16 bits, may organize their subnets. > How could you rule out all other posibilities by suggesting you have one of > the good ways to do things? > > Cheers, > > Sheng > > > On 4 June 2013 11:53, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > -- > Sheng Jiang 蒋胜
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
