Unless the SP's semantic meaning of those bits otherwise restricts how the user can use different chunks of that /48.
Owen On Jun 5, 2013, at 01:01 , ian.far...@telekom.de wrote: > If the SP allocates users the equivalent of a /48 divided up as multiple > >/48s with semantic meaning to each of the assigned prefixes, then the user's > got a /48, and the SP's got their semantic bits. > > Ian > > From: Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> > Date: Wednesday, 5 June 2013 05:42 > To: Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> > Cc: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>, "<v6...@ietf.org>" <v6...@ietf.org>, > "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, > "draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org" > <draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org>, Ralph Droms > <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than > locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 > Resent-To: <boyang...@huawei.com>, Ian Farrer <ian.far...@telekom.de>, > <jiangsh...@huawei.com>, <sunqi...@ctbri.com.cn> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: >> So the point isn't that a /48 is a waste of space. It's that a /48 is >> assumed, and because it is assumed, there are definitely bits available for >> semantic prefix assignment. > > I still don't understand. What the above sentences seem to be saying is that > "there are bits available for semantic prefix assignment because RIRs assume > /48 but users don't actually get /48". Is that your point? > > If so, I don't see how you can also state that there are enough bits to both > give every user a /48 and to use semantic prefix bits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
