Hi, Qiong, Sharing your concern. This variation is only one of possible way to use the address. So far, I am not convinced why give subscriber some much free bits and how to use it well. Maybe Owen, who suggest this can give us for information. Lets’ discuss the further. At the end, maybe what we only need to do in the draft is to document this possibilities and neutrally record its advantages and pitfalls.
Cheers, Sheng From: Qiong [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:45 AM To: Sheng Jiang Cc: Ted Lemon; Owen DeLong; <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 Hi Sheng, On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Sheng Jiang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Comparing giving 16 bits for subscribers, which rarely use it or we still have no concrete idea how this will be used, the semantic bits on the provider side looks more helpful. Or provider may designate the bit in the lower 16 bits can have some semantics. For example, a provider may give every subscriber /48 and appoint that all subscribers should use their /48+0000 (48~51 bit) -> a /52 prefix for a certain application, like VoIP. Then the provider can inspect all VoIP traffic from different subscribers by only set condition 48~51 bit equal to 0000. This variation of semantic prefix is also helpful. [Qiong] I have little concern for this variation. For operators who can not fully control of subscriber's CPE, this solution may have trust issue, and it may get conflict with other CPE's allocation policy. But it is ok for operators who can fully control of subscriber's CPE. Best wishes Qiong From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:29 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: Sheng Jiang; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 On May 30, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Not a great assumption... They should need 4 million or more /48s since every subscriber is at least one end site and every subscriber end site should receive a /48. I am not in love with using bits from prefixes as semantic tags. However, having said that, I think it's a bit ironic that you're talking about wasting space with semantic bits, on the one hand, and talking about the need for a /48 in every home on the other. It would be perfectly reasonable for the ISP to specify that some of the bits in the /48 have semantic meaning, for example, and given that we think it's okay to give the home network a /48, we are hardly in a position to quibble about how the bits in that /48 are used. _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops -- ============================================== Qiong Sun China Telecom Beijing Research Institude Open source code: lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/ PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ ===============================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
