>> Personally, I'm waiting for us to agree that due to current RIR policies, if >> an ISP chooses to use semantic prefixes, then it will not be able to give >> users as much space as it would be able to give them if it chose not to use >> semantic prefixes. > > You will have to wait until someone from an RIR says "we won't allocate more > bits in cases like this." We have only heard from one person who works for > an RIR, and his opinion was that this was subject to negotiation, and not > clear-cut. But even if we did get some kind of firm commitment from RIRs > that they would never give an ISP extra bits, the ISP can still use bits from > the customer's allocation, unless RIRs change _that_ policy too (Owen's > absurd accusations of fraud notwithstanding). > > We've gone around and around on this for days, and nobody's been able to make > a solid case for the proposition that there aren't enough bits to do semantic > prefixes. I think we don't need to argue that question anymore. Is that > _really_ the _only_ argument against semantic prefixes?
I find that a pretty convincing argument. given ample imagination, there is no limit to how many semantic bits someone could find useful. nor is there a limit to what information someone could find useful to encode. we're seeing examples of this, albeit further down in the address, for the A+P work. I don't think the IETF should condone this practice, and not write documents that could be used as justification with the RIRs to acquire more address space and what is allowed by the current policies. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
