On Jun 6, 2013, at 03:39 , Sheng Jiang <shengji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. Your use of the word "benefit" here is questionable at best. It is an example of language that seems to encourage this use rather than evaluate it in an unbiased manner. "Enterprise operators are another group of network operators which may succumb to this nasty pitfall of embedded semantics" would be an equally biased statement in the opposite direction. I suggest that neutral would require something more along the lines of: "Enterprise operators are another group of network operators which may choose to embed semantics in their address prefixes." Now, in terms of arguing the merits, there are significant differences between these two. In the case of an enterprise operator, their choice to embed semantics in the address has a limited scope of harm. It can only negatively impact said enterprise. In the case of an ISP, this can have significant consequences not only for the ISP, but also for their downstream customers. Owen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
