Yes, this discussion has become far way from my original motivation of analysing semantic prefix mechanism. I am going to stop replying to the discuss regarding to the avaibilities of bits. In the future version, I will add the bits consumption as one of the pitfalls.
By the way, ISPs are only one kind of network operators who are interesting in semantic prefix. Enterprise network operators are another group of network operators who can benefit from embedded semantics. And the enterprises do not have subscribers who potentially need extra bits. Cheers, Sheng On 6 June 2013 04:13, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 2013, at 3:28 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" < > albert.e.manfr...@boeing.com> wrote: > > Actually, I was about to make that suggestion myself. We can stop this > infinite thread by simply saying, do whatever semantic tricks you want with > the address blocks allocated to you, but know that you won't get any more > just so you can play those semantic tricks. > > What's wrong with that as a policy? > > The IETF doesn't set the policy. I have no objection to that policy, but > it ain't up to us. > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > -- Sheng Jiang 蒋胜
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
