Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

2013-06-05 Thread manning bill
. The motivation is to document existing typical semantic IP address mechanisms and analyze them, both good and bad side. I will make this very clear in the new version. Sheng On 4 June 2013 22:44, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote: I believe this is fraught with danger. It perhaps better

Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

2013-06-04 Thread manning bill
i've heard that too. hardware designers going for the 80% solution. However /64 is -NOT- part of the IPv6 spec. the hardware is supposed to support bit masking across the range. /bill On 3June2013Monday, at 13:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 04/06/2013 03:44, manning bill wrote

Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

2013-06-04 Thread manning bill
such a limitation. joel On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/2013 03:44, manning bill wrote: On 2June2013Sunday, at 16:47, Sander Steffann wrote: On 03/06/2013 11:06

Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

2013-06-04 Thread manning bill
of routers. please cite specifics. I have no devices in the field that have such a limitation. joel On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/2013 03:44, manning bill wrote

Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

2013-06-03 Thread manning bill
On 2June2013Sunday, at 16:47, Sander Steffann wrote: On 03/06/2013 11:06, manning bill wrote: /48's are a horrible policy - one should only advertise what one is actually using. Now *that* would cause a nice fragmented DFZ... Sander I'm going to inject a route. One route. why do

Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

2013-06-03 Thread manning bill
On 3June2013Monday, at 8:51, Sander Steffann wrote: On 2June2013Sunday, at 16:47, Sander Steffann wrote: On 03/06/2013 11:06, manning bill wrote: /48's are a horrible policy - one should only advertise what one is actually using. Now *that* would cause a nice fragmented DFZ... Sander

Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

2013-06-02 Thread manning bill
On 2June2013Sunday, at 15:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 03/06/2013 10:31, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: The kind of painfully obvious solution, especially when we consider the effects of the much-ballyhooed Internet of Things, is that we have to allow for prefixes /64. It's not just home

Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

2013-06-02 Thread manning bill
On 2June2013Sunday, at 16:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 03/06/2013 11:06, manning bill wrote: On 2June2013Sunday, at 15:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 03/06/2013 10:31, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: The kind of painfully obvious solution, especially when we consider the effects