On 30 May 2013, at 08:00, Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I agree. That said, an ISP, enterprise or group of organisations can follow >> whatever semantics they wish within their own borders. Just don't expect >> anyone else to follow or use those semantics. What Sheng is proposing is >> clearly stated as only being for interpretation between agreeing >> organisations. > > Hi, Tim, > > It is exactly what the draft document. These semantics is only meaningful > locally within the assigning provider network. It may only be interpretation > between agreeing providers. > > Any efforts to add global or generic semantics to IP address is overload the > IP architecture and it bad direction, I agree. > >> I think people will do this type of thing, so an Informational document >> discussing the pros and cons, and how semantics can be used, is probably a >> good thing. Perhaps a "Potential Pitfalls" type section after the "Potential >> Benefits" section would balance the document a little better? > > Yes. We will do so in the future version.
Good, and I think it's important to do so. George and Lorenzo's comments are good starting points for that section. The potential privacy/information leakage aspect is also worth capturing, should those addresses be seen outside the organisation. 6rd is a good example of a scheme that typically requires a larger allocation from the RIR purely because of the semantics used. But in some cases the semantics need not require a larger allocation; we could include semantics in a campus /48 for example. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
