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

2013-06-08 Thread joel jaeggli
On 6/8/13 4:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: 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 sp

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

2013-06-07 Thread Jeroen Massar
On 2013-06-07 19:17, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> 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

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

2013-06-07 Thread Owen DeLong
> > 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 fro

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

2013-06-07 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Argh. I don't think anybody ever said that there was no cost to these > bits, and I agree that the cost should be discussed. So I guess we've > been arguing over a nonexistent disagreement! :| > Yes, that happens. :-( One thing to bear

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

2013-06-07 Thread Sheng Jiang
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.

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

2013-06-07 Thread Owen DeLong
>>> 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. >>

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

2013-06-07 Thread joel jaeggli
On 6/6/13 10:09 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Ted Lemon > wrote: Saying "it says nothing of the sort" without even citing it is not a very convincing argument. If you want to state convincingly that it says nothing of the s

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

2013-06-07 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 6, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: Like almost everything things in engineering, it's a cost/benefit tradeoff. This discussion about "not enough bits" is simply attempting to quantify some of the costs involved. I keep harping about it because the cos

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

2013-06-06 Thread Richard Hartmann
On Jun 6, 2013 8:58 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > While my statements in this forum are my opinion alone and not intended to represent ARIN or the AC, I think I bring a pretty good knowledge of both the letter and the intent of the policies as they exist today. Thus, it should be easy for you to po

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

2013-06-06 Thread John Curran
On Jun 6, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > Hi, John, > > Thanks for your message. Yes, I will add lower address utility rate as one of > the major pitfalls. However, I don't want to make an absolute statement of > "cannot". As a neutral analysis, it is better to just make observation, s

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

2013-06-06 Thread Sheng Jiang
>> Agree. The network providers should know they cannot get more addresses >because they use their block for semantic, which lead to lower address utility >rate. >> >> Will make this clear in the new section "potential pitfalls". > >Sheng - > > It would be very helpful to put that clarifying point

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

2013-06-06 Thread Sheng Jiang
>> 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

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

2013-06-06 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > What about the APNIC policy I cited a few emails ago? You have not > explained why you think it supports your point of view that using semantic > bits does not make it harder for ISPs to assign /48s to users. > > > The policy says that if you w

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

2013-06-06 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: What about the APNIC policy I cited a few emails ago? You have not explained why you think it supports your point of view that using semantic bits does not make it harder for ISPs to assign /48s to users. The policy

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

2013-06-06 Thread John Curran
On May 30, 2013, at 11:28 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > Agree. The network providers should know they cannot get more addresses > because they use their block for semantic, which lead to lower address > utility rate. > > Will make this clear in the new section "potential pitfalls". Sheng - It

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

2013-06-06 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > If you claim you gave a customer a /48 and the customer reports that > they are not allowed to exercise control over the use of that /48, then, > you have not, in fact, delegated authority over that /48 as you have > claimed to ARIN and that is

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

2013-06-06 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: If you claim you gave a customer a /48 and the customer reports that they are not allowed to exercise control over the use of that /48, then, you have not, in fact, delegated authority over that /48 as you have claimed to AR

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

2013-06-06 Thread Owen DeLong
On Jun 6, 2013, at 04:34 , Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Lorenzo Colitti 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 >> users as much space as it would be

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

2013-06-06 Thread Owen DeLong
On Jun 6, 2013, at 03:39 , Sheng Jiang 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 consum

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

2013-06-06 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 6, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: Start by saying how the statement I point to as justification does not, in fact, mean what I say, and why it does not? The text doesn't say that ARIN won't allocate bits for semantic prefixes. It doesn't even ment

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

2013-06-06 Thread Niall O'Reilly
On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:26, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > indeed, the letter of the policy above suggests that a /48 is acceptable > only in the case of "extra large end sites" How do you read that into the extract you cited, Lorenzo? Niall O'Reilly --

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

2013-06-06 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Saying "it says nothing of the sort" without even citing it is not a > very convincing argument. If you want to state convincingly that it says > nothing of the sort, then why not start from the text I posted earlier and > explain why my interp

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

2013-06-06 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: Saying "it says nothing of the sort" without even citing it is not a very convincing argument. If you want to state convincingly that it says nothing of the sort, then why not start from the text I posted earlier and

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

2013-06-06 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > 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, app

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

2013-06-06 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 6, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > 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, ap

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

2013-06-06 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Ted Lemon 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.

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

2013-06-06 Thread Ole Troan
>> 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 someo

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

2013-06-06 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto: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 users as much space as it would be able to give them if it chose

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

2013-06-06 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > You should reread the text. It says sites that need _more_ than a /48 > are "extra large end sites." > Yes, Niall pointed that out to me. But the argument is the same, see my reply to him. -

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

2013-06-06 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:26 PM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: Thus, using semantic prefixes makes it much harder to assign /48s to users - indeed, the letter of the policy above suggests that a /48 is acceptable only in the case of "extra large end sites", and that *every singl

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

2013-06-06 Thread Sander Steffann
Hi, > 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.

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

2013-06-06 Thread Sheng Jiang
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

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

2013-06-06 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:26, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > > indeed, the letter of the policy above suggests that a /48 is > acceptable only in the case of "extra large end sites" > > How do you read that into the extract you cited, Lore

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

2013-06-05 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong mailto: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 end site in order to qualify for an additional allocation. At le

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

2013-06-05 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Sander Steffann 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 based on (according to current po

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

2013-06-05 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > I still don't understand. What the above sentences seem to be saying is > that "there are bits available for semantic prefix assignment because RIRs > assume /48 but users don't actually get /48". Is that your point? > > > No. There are bits a

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

2013-06-05 Thread Owen DeLong
On Jun 5, 2013, at 15:55 , Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong 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 end site in order to qualify fo

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

2013-06-05 Thread Owen DeLong
On Jun 5, 2013, at 09:11 , Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Sander Steffann 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 based on (according to current pol

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

2013-06-05 Thread Owen DeLong
> "draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org" > , Ralph Droms > > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than > locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 > Resent-To: , Ian Farrer , > , > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ted Lemon

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

2013-06-05 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 5, 2013, at 3:28 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" wrote: > Actually, I was about to make that suggestion myself. We can stop this > infinite thread by simply saying, do whatever semantic tricks you want with > the address blocks allocated to you, but know that you won't get any more > just so y

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

2013-06-05 Thread Manfredi, Albert E
al Message- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted > Lemon > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 12:12 PM > To: Sander Steffann > Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG; ; > ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?

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

2013-06-05 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Sander Steffann 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 based on (according to current policy). So if the ISP says "we need a /48 per custome

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

2013-06-05 Thread Sander Steffann
Hi Ted, > On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: >> So they playing field is mixed. Some do /56, but the major players do (or >> will do) /48. > > Sure, but you're just confirming my point that if a provider wants to do > semantic prefixes, they can get enough bits to do them by a

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

2013-06-05 Thread Vízdal Aleš
> -Original Message- > From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted > Lemon > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Sander Steffann > Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG; ; > ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address

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

2013-06-05 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: > So they playing field is mixed. Some do /56, but the major players do (or > will do) /48. Sure, but you're just confirming my point that if a provider wants to do semantic prefixes, they can get enough bits to do them by allocating a /56 to

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

2013-06-05 Thread ian.farrer
jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org>" mailto:draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org>>, Ralph Droms mailto:rdroms.i...@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6op

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

2013-06-05 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:42 PM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: I still don't understand. What the above sentences seem to be saying is that "there are bits available for semantic prefix assignment because RIRs assume /48 but users don't actually get /48". Is that your point? No

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

2013-06-05 Thread Sander Steffann
Hi Ted, Op 5 jun. 2013, om 04:46 heeft Ted Lemon het volgende geschreven: > Be that as it may, ISPs all seem to be deploying networks with /56's to the > home, not /48's. Not in my part of the world (Netherlands). They all give at least a /56. These I know: - XS4ALL: /48 to all using PPPoA wi

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

2013-06-05 Thread manning bill
i don't believe that I said support. but when you select cases as representative, you are biasing the result. people place all sorts of semantic clues in the methods of addressing… more so when the addresses themselves are too large to be memnonic. I happen to believe that the idea of document

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

2013-06-05 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:55:25AM +0800, Sheng Jiang wrote: > As far as I know, most of Tier1 providers gets /24, /26 or bigger. No :-) As this has nothing to do with the "Tier1"-ness, but with the number of customers that the provider will provide /48s to. So if a "Tier1" is only connecti

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

2013-06-04 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > So the point isn't that a /48 is a waste of space. It's that a /48 is > assumed, and because it is assumed, there are definitely bits available for > semantic prefix assignment. > I still don't understand. What the above sentences seem to be

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

2013-06-04 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Ted Lemon mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com>> wrote: So then your argument should be "RIRs should not plan to assign /48s to subscribers because ISPs are assigning /56s to subscribers any

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

2013-06-04 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > So then your argument should be "RIRs should not plan to assign /48s to > subscribers because ISPs are assigning /56s to subscribers anyway"? > > > No, it shouldn't. My argument is that the belief that no bits are > available for use in seman

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

2013-06-04 Thread John Mann
Hi, I see some issues when using non-topological address hierarchies: 1. For example, if you use addresses then you can have one route entry to route all traffic to a location, i.e. But, it is harder to send traffic of one over different links than other classes -- you can't have 1 rout

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

2013-06-04 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 4, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: So then your argument should be "RIRs should not plan to assign /48s to subscribers because ISPs are assigning /56s to subscribers anyway"? No, it shouldn't. My argument is that the belief that no bits are availabl

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

2013-06-04 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Be that as it may, ISPs all seem to be deploying networks with /56's to > the home, not /48's. Edge-rooted PD is an ops doc—no new protocol work is > required. > So then your argument should be "RIRs should not plan to assign /48s to subscri

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

2013-06-04 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 4, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Lorenzo Colitti mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote: Addressing policy cannot be shaped on what the IETF thinks might happen in the best case. It must be done taking into account real world constraints. If efficiently-addressed, routed home networks don't happen, then

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

2013-06-04 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > So even though we have solutions to allocate prefixes efficiently in > arbitrary home network topologies > We don't have solutions. We only have ideas on how solutions might be built, and it must be noted that those ideas have not been adopted

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

2013-06-04 Thread Sheng Jiang
As far as I know, most of Tier1 providers gets /24, /26 or bigger. For RIR's policy, please see recent email from George Michaelson. Although he did not speak in any formal, he explained RIR policy is much flexiable than most of us thought. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg16

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

2013-06-04 Thread Sheng Jiang
We do NOT "support" anything. This would be an analysis document. 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 wrote: > I believe

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

2013-06-04 Thread Vízdal Aleš
From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:45 AM To: Vízdal Aleš Cc: Joel M. Halpern; Sheng Jiang; ; 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

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

2013-06-04 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 09:29:52AM +0800, Sheng Jiang wrote: > >They are stealing from the consumer's flexibility to > >provide (questionable) functionality to the provider. > > What's the problem if the consumer get /48 as you want, and providers play > their 28 bits (bit 20~47)? Where are

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

2013-06-04 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: I don't rule out anything. I state that the bits should be there so that automated topologies can be made to function in an arbitrary plug-and-play environment. If it can be used for other purposes, that's fine, but I do no

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

2013-06-04 Thread Sheng Jiang
For sure, we cannot document all variants, but we can document the most representative ones. My current plan is three categeries: ISP's, enterprise's and subscribe's. Each categery has one example (in appendexes), I guess. Cheers, Sheng On 4 June 2013 21:51, manning bill wrote: > are you inte

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

2013-06-04 Thread Sheng Jiang
Hi, George, Yes, network operators have the freedom to plan the address in their prefer ways. There are many different ways to organize address schemas. Different network operators (including both ISPs and enterprises) has various considerations. Some consideration may be important for one network

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

2013-06-04 Thread Sheng Jiang
I do understand your hierarical 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,

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

2013-06-04 Thread Ivan Pepelnjak
; ipv6@ietf.org; > manning bill > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft- > jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 > > On 6/3/13 7:11 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote: > > Read the recent "p2p /64" thread of ipv6-ops cluenet mailing list > You are referin

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

2013-06-04 Thread Owen DeLong
I don't rule out anything. I state that the bits should be there so that automated topologies can be made to function in an arbitrary plug-and-play environment. If it can be used for other purposes, that's fine, but I do not suggest that we should support those other purposes officially. OTOH,

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

2013-06-04 Thread manning bill
I believe this is fraught with danger. It perhaps better to identify semantic constructs than to presuppose representative cases. things like even/odd for in/out-bound links, lat/log encoding or other geo-location etc. as a survey of technique. /bill On 4June2013Tuesday, at 7:32, Sheng Jia

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

2013-06-04 Thread manning bill
are you intending to document -all- variants of the semantics address holder may use to address and organize their assigned numbers? or are you intending to document a "preferred" version of address semantics? /bill On 4June2013Tuesday, at 6:24, Sheng Jiang wrote: > Hi, George, > > Yes, net

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: >> On 2Ju

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

2013-06-04 Thread joel jaeggli
--Original Message- From: joel jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 6:27 AM To: Ivan Pepelnjak Cc: Andrew McGregor; Brian E Carpenter; v6...@ietf.org WG; ipv6@ietf.org; manning bill Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft- jiang-v6ops-seman

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

2013-06-04 Thread Ray Hunter
Mark Smith wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> From: Brian E Carpenter >> To: manning bill >> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; "v6...@ietf.org WG" >> Sent: Tuesday, 4 June 2013 6:27 AM >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than >

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

2013-06-03 Thread joel jaeggli
On 6/3/13 7:11 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote: Read the recent "p2p /64" thread of ipv6-ops cluenet mailing list You are refering to: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2013-June/thread.html I stand by my statement... The inability to properly apply ACLs on the 3750 for routes longer than

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

2013-06-03 Thread Sheng Jiang
Semantic addresses is beyond the access control. For example, you can compare the security semantic bits of source and destination addresses. If they belong to different security domain, and you have a policy they should not communicate each other, you could drop the packet. Sheng On 4 June 2013

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

2013-06-03 Thread Owen DeLong
On Jun 3, 2013, at 17:59 , Sheng Jiang 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 the > semantic bi

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

2013-06-03 Thread George Michaelson
Just to remind people, RIR policy is community driven. If the operations people feel they need a policy for IPv6 allocations and assignments which takes accounts of semantic bits, they can derive consensus driven policies to do it. Its not done in the IETF. There might be an issue with how it squar

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

2013-06-03 Thread Ivan Pepelnjak
Read the recent "p2p /64" thread of ipv6-ops cluenet mailing list = Mistyped and autocorrected on a clunky virtual keyboard On 4. jun. 2013, at 01:08, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 6/3/13 3:59 PM, Andrew McGregor wrote: >> That's completely true; many switch chips cannot route on longer than /64

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

2013-06-03 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > >They are stealing from the consumer's flexibility to > >provide (questionable) functionality to the provider. > > What's the problem if the consumer get /48 as you want, and providers play > their 28 bits (bit 20~47)? > The problem is that t

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

2013-06-03 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Vízdal Aleš wrote: > > If I am reading this correctly, in the end this is riven by the fact > that existing boxes > > can easily filter on addresses (although it will take a lot of filters), > but can not apply > > ACLs to DSCPs or extension headers? > > The curren

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

2013-06-03 Thread Sheng Jiang
>They are stealing from the consumer's flexibility to >provide (questionable) functionality to the provider. What's the problem if the consumer get /48 as you want, and providers play their 28 bits (bit 20~47)? For me, the consumer flexibility looks more uncertain although I don't have much again

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

2013-06-03 Thread Sheng Jiang
Hi, Roland, Thanks for your comments. Yes, the authors will restructure this draft - making it more an analysis draft rather than a proposal. The pitfalls will be an very important part for a neutral analysis. Cheers, Sheng On 3 June 2013 22:09, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote: > Hi, > > On 31.05.2

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

2013-06-03 Thread Sheng Jiang
Exactly. I agree we should not block the possibility for the future. However, I don't agree we should block the current requirements to make the way for the uncertainties of future. We should first serve the needs today, then we the better current network will become a better fundamental for our fu

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

2013-06-03 Thread Sheng Jiang
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 the semantic bits in their networks with the bits from 20 to 48 or 56. You

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

2013-06-03 Thread Andrew McGregor
Ok maybe I'm overstating it a bit... but there are a lot of those chips out there, and they are painful. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:08 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 6/3/13 3:59 PM, Andrew McGregor wrote: > >> That's completely true; many switch chips cannot route on longer than /64 >> prefixes, so

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

2013-06-03 Thread joel jaeggli
On 6/3/13 3:59 PM, Andrew McGregor wrote: That's completely true; many switch chips cannot route on longer than /64 prefixes, so attempting to do so starts to either heat up the software slow path, or consume ACL entries, or is simply not supported at all. While this is arguably a bug, it is al

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

2013-06-03 Thread Andrew McGregor
That's completely true; many switch chips cannot route on longer than /64 prefixes, so attempting to do so starts to either heat up the software slow path, or consume ACL entries, or is simply not supported at all. While this is arguably a bug, it is also pretty much ubiquitous in the current gene

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

2013-06-03 Thread Mark Smith
- Original Message - > From: Brian E Carpenter > To: manning bill > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; "v6...@ietf.org WG" > Sent: Tuesday, 4 June 2013 6:27 AM > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

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

2013-06-03 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 04/06/2013 03:44, manning bill 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

2013-06-03 Thread Manfredi, Albert E
> -Original Message- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > manning bill > Pragmatically, much of the IPv6 protocol/application development has > ignored half the 128bit space and treats IPv6 as a 64bit address platform. Exactly. It's time to r

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 fragme

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

2013-06-03 Thread Sander Steffann
> 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

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. w

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

2013-06-03 Thread Sheng Jiang
I have to say the hierarchical assignment is a such great way to waste address space or prefix 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,

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

2013-06-03 Thread Sheng Jiang
Hi, Shane, Actually, we do assume the SP deploys unicast filters to drop incoming packets with illegitimate source IP address/prefix. After then, the packets become trusted. It is the filter who makes sure the prefix right. The filter should link back to other states of the user, like user authen

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

2013-06-03 Thread Vízdal Aleš
[v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than > locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops- > semantic-prefix-03 > > If I am reading this correctly, in the end this is riven by the fact that > existing boxes > can easily filter on addresses (although it will take a lot of filters), but > ca

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

2013-06-03 Thread Owen DeLong
On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Owen DeLong 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 for purposes of allowing the >>

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

2013-06-03 Thread Ted Lemon
On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Owen DeLong mailto: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 for purposes of allowing the provider to overload the IP address with

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

2013-06-03 Thread Bless, Roland (TM)
Hi, On 31.05.2013 11:46, Ray Hunter wrote: > But why are people coming up with these schemes for encoding semantics > in the address prefixes in the first place? That's what I'd like to > understand first and foremost: what lack of functionality is > motivating/forcing these people to adopt such

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

2013-06-03 Thread Joel M. Halpern
If I am reading this correctly, in the end this is riven by the fact that existing boxes can easily filter on addresses (although it will take a lot of filters), but can not apply ACLs to DSCPs or extension headers? It seems like what we need is a draft that clearly explains why trying to sho

  1   2   >