On 5/29/13 11:47 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Tim Chown <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I agree. That said, an ISP, enterprise or group of organisations
can follow whatever semantics they wish within their own borders.
As long as the RIRs are willing to give them enough address space to
do so.
If an ISP requested an IPv6 /10 from ARIN because they wanted to give
every customer a /48 and wanted to geocode the customer's subscriber
ID into the /48, then ARIN would do well to say, "no, sorry, that
doesn't make sense".
Lest someone not realize this, the draft should clearly state that
embedding N bits of semantics into IPv6 addresses causes the network
to use 2^N times the address space that it normally would.
pretty much what I said at the mic... If this ever shows up in a
jsutification for a /18 or /24 vs a /26 at an RIR that's a really bad
thing imho.
IMO I think it should also state that although it is an IETF RFC, this
model is not necessarily a recommended model, and that RIRs are not
obliged to accept this type of address allocation as a justification
for obtaining larger address blocks than they would normally be able
to obtain.
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
