On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> 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. > Sorry, but no. This is clearly spelled out in the policy which I quoted earlier. Surely you're not saying that hearsay from an employee who happens to work in the research group of an RIR is more authoritative than than the official, approved RIR policy that clearly spells this out? You're not saying that, right? Then what are you saying? 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. > It's made very clear in the policy that you can't do this *and* give out /48s to users at the same time (at least, without substantial pain). Thus, using these bits results in ISPs being able to give users less space than they would otherwise. If we agree on that, then we can move on. Do we? > I think we don't need to argue that question anymore. Is that _really_ > the _only_ argument against semantic prefixes? > There were others in this thread. One that comes to mind is "why can't you do this with DSCP, which was designed for the purpose to give packets semantics?". But one argument at a time, ok?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
