On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:06 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14-Oct-21 22:41, Ted Hardie wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:28 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Including semantics *of any kind* in an IP address is a very > fundamental > > change to the concept of IP.< > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> > > > > > > Would you mind elaborating what you mean by semantics in the statement > above? Clearly there are semantics in things like the IPv4 multicast and > experimental address ranges (aka "Class D" and "Class E"); especially for > the multicast case, the very fundamental semantics of the distribution are > signalled using the address and there has been significant deployment using > those semantics. Isn't that semantics in the meaning above? > > Yes, I should have restricted my remark to *unicast* addresses. But there > is a difference, I think, between semantics that describe the *type of > address* and semantics that actively describe *what the recipient is going > to do*. It's the latter that I was getting at. > > Thank you for the clarification, though I'm still struggling a bit with understanding your concern. Since we use address ranges for scope semantics (e.g. ULAs for administratively determined scopes) even within unicast addressing, I'm not quite seeing the line you are yet. > (This applies to Carsten's comment too. Port numbers or multiple addresses per host are not actively describing what the recipient will do; they're just numbers.) While this may theoretically be true, we actually associate significant semantics with port numbers, both in the end hosts (e.g. the ports below 1024 being privileged ports) and in the network (where firewalls use ports to start the process of analyzing the permissibility of a flow). A specific port number very much describes what the host will do: port 25 will link to the SMTP service, for example. So I guess I'm not following this parallel too well either. regards, Ted > > Also, I tried not to express shock and horror at the notion of semantics > in address, but concern about how this will impact existing hardware and > software. > > > > > Thanks for any clarification, > > > > Ted > > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
