On Jun 4, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com<mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: So then your argument should be "RIRs should not plan to assign /48s to subscribers because ISPs are assigning /56s to subscribers anyway"?
No, it shouldn't. My argument is that the belief that no bits are available for use in semantic prefix-based routing is not sustainable. It may be that semantic bits in the prefix are a bad idea for any of a variety of reasons, but there are bits available if ISPs decide to architect their network using semantic prefixes. We were quibbling over one way of acquiring such bits, but the fundamental point is that such bits can be acquired, so the premise that they can't is not useful in arguing against the use of semantic prefixes. If semantic prefixes are a bad idea, it's for some other reason than bits. It would be helpful if the conversation could leave behind this rathole and move on to discussing whatever it is that is actually wrong with semantic prefixes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
