> -----Original Message----- > From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted > Lemon > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Sander Steffann > Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG; <draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org>; > ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than > locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops- > semantic-prefix-03 > > On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote: > > So they playing field is mixed. Some do /56, but the major players do (or > > will do) /48. > > Sure, but you're just confirming my point that if a provider wants to do > semantic > prefixes, they can get enough bits to do them by allocating a /56 to > customers instead > of a /48. The point is not to catalog the various choices providers have > made, but > simply to point out that "bit scarcity" is not a good argument to use against > semantic > prefixes. If they are a bad idea, which they may well be, it is for some > other reason.
It's been mentioned earlier, a provider can allocate multiple /56 prefixes to a customer, each of them having its own semantics (e.g. service based). -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
