On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:10 AM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote:
> Hi Brian, > > Thank you - yes by legacy I meant not upgraded one - no different meaning > intended. > > As far as conforming to addressing architecture sorry to say but to me > this is red herring. Sure address must be a legal address - no question. > But what bits in the address mean is really up to the person allocating > them. > unfortunately not. otherwise the postal service would have never worked in the first place. The semantic concepts (and their semiotics) of names/addresses & routes predate the internet by a couple of millenia and did not shift much and we won't most likely shift them (and as side quip the illusion of "flat" addresses as in MAC has proven unscalable yet again ;-). I recommend in the context of networking the seminal 70s paper by Schoh from Xerox. on top you're logically contradicting yourself in the same sentence, if anybody can assign any semantics to an address in the same space because "they allocate it" then no'one can judge what is legal and what isn't And all this here is not the case of intelligence showing by holding two contradicting ideas in one's head, this here is simply enshrining two or more contradicting "standards" in one standards body @ which point in time the term "standards" quickly starts to lose its meaning in first place. well, I said my piece, up to IAB and so on to worry about what's happening here really ... -- tony
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
