If the SP allocates users the equivalent of a /48 divided up as multiple >/48s with semantic meaning to each of the assigned prefixes, then the user's got a /48, and the SP's got their semantic bits.
Ian From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, 5 June 2013 05:42 To: Ted Lemon <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Owen DeLong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ralph Droms <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 Resent-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ian Farrer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: So the point isn't that a /48 is a waste of space. It's that a /48 is assumed, and because it is assumed, there are definitely bits available for semantic prefix assignment. I still don't understand. What the above sentences seem to be saying is that "there are bits available for semantic prefix assignment because RIRs assume /48 but users don't actually get /48". Is that your point? If so, I don't see how you can also state that there are enough bits to both give every user a /48 and to use semantic prefix bits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
