On 05-Oct-21 23:09, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Tony, > > I am afraid you missed my point :( > > Any IP address can be split into routable part and non routable part (or > perhaps to be more correct globally routable part and locally routable part). > > So I am not contradicting myself at all stating that if I got /24 or /64 from > RIR and I advertise those to attract traffic and I can do whatever I want > with the remaining 8 or 64 bits.
Well, they are address bits, not semantic content, in the IP connectionless datagram model invented in the late 1970s and slightly updated in the 1990s. What you are describing is radically different. But nothing you wrote previously made it clear that you were talking about only part of the 128 bits. > > Remember ISDN or better E.164 numbers ? My number is is my base number and > extension - DDI or DID. If I assign DDI to fax or voice mail or phone in the kitchen has no bearing on the telephone network, rest of the number to reach me. > > Besides all that we are taking here about encapsulated packets anyway - so even how I make sure the prefix or locator are advertised and installed in the FIBs should be not a concern to any of my neighbors. If my encapsulated packets leak (or as some say escape) and I use legal prefix assigned by RIR as part of the DST address there are bunch of tools deployed today which should drop it right there on the other edge. Indeed. I don't actually care what an SRV6 site does in private; but it's like forgetting to switch your camera off during a Zoom session, or messing up your BGP update: accidents will happen, and that's what the IETF should worry about. Brian > > Best, > R. > > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:38 AM Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com > <mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:10 AM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net > <mailto: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
