2. Comcast only appears to have a /29 and a /28 (2001:558::/29, 2601::/28).
That's only 1.5M /48s, and they have about 10x that many customers. They
likely can't use /48 plus semantic prefixes, because if ARIN doesn't accept
semantic prefixes as using space efficiently (and word from ARIN
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
On Jun 6, 2013, at 04:34 , Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
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
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
On Jun 5, 2013, at 09:11 , Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:
Keep in mind that RIRs won't give you extra address space though. If you
assign /56s to your users then that is what the RIR need-base calculations
are
On Jun 5, 2013, at 15:55 , Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Also note that if you give residential customers /56s, you will need to be
able to justify /48s for businesses in terms of the number of /56s they need
at each
allocation is only topology. But do you think
that's the only way subscriber, who has 16 bits, may organize their subnets.
How could you rule out all other posibilities by suggesting you have one of
the good ways to do things?
Cheers,
Sheng
On 4 June 2013 11:53, Owen DeLong o
bit. I cannot real see much benefits or use cases of
it. Why may home site 3 subordinate routers? How many subnets or devices may
a /48 prefix serve in this model?
Cheers,
Sheng
On 3 June 2013 00:39, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le
On Jun 3, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Yes. A fine engineering solution for demonstration purposes, but not a
good solution for us to recommend for deployment in the long term.
Because
On Jun 3, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
No, there is no use case where this is better than doing the delegations
from the router that received the initial delegation (since we're
apparently just
On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I believe that making bits available for greater flexibility in consumer
networking is a good use of bits.
I believe that stealing bits from the consumer
On Jun 3, 2013, at 17:59 , Sheng Jiang shengji...@gmail.com wrote:
This looks a typical double standard for me. You are willing to allow homenet
(the network operator in this case is subscribers) to play semantic in their
networks with the bits from 48 to 63, while you disallow ISPs to set
On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:22 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
{ISP Connection} - Router - multiple segments each of which contains one
or more routers, some of which have multiple segments which contain
additional routers
On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
You are assuming that all of the subordinate routers will act as DHCP relays
rather than doing PD.
That is certainly one possible solution
On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Isn't the hipnet model one with recursive PD?
Yes. A fine engineering solution for demonstration purposes, but not a good
solution for us to recommend for
On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
We can agree to disagree.
Do you want to fly in an airplane designed by someone who agrees to disagree
with you on whether heavy objects fall faster
On Jun 2, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
We shouldn't resuscitate it unless it has a solution for user unplugs the
router which assigned all the prefixes in the home.
Making hosts try all their
On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
The second one sounds like it gets pretty dysfunctional if you have
downstream routers with downstream routers.
There's no such thing, unless you think home
On May 30, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On May 30, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Not a great assumption... They should need 4 million or more /48s since
every subscriber is at least one end site and every subscriber end site
should
On May 31, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On May 31, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
The /48 is in order to allow 16 bits of space for automating the deployment
of hierarchy and routing within the end-site.
Right, which is ludicrous overkill
necessarily appear right away.
It's a really great way to install time bombs in to operational systems. I do
not recommend it.
Owen
Best regards,
Sheng
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:02 AM
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: v6
; Owen DeLong; v6...@ietf.org;
draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than
locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Sheng Jiang jiangsh...@huawei.com wrote:
Yes
Personally, I think this is an inherently bad idea.
IP addresses need less overloading of semantics, not more.
We already use IP addresses for two conflicting purposes… Topology locator and
End System Identifier.
This overloading is at the heart of our current scaling issues with respect to
On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read
*before*
minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't point
you to a
specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN meeting.
It has been clear
24 matches
Mail list logo
