On Jun 6, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> Thanks for your message. Yes, I will add lower address utility rate as one of
> the major pitfalls. However, I don't want to make an absolute statement of
> "cannot". As a neutral analysis, it is better to just make observation, such
> as "there is risk that they may not". We do not want to influence the RIR
> policy either way, which would be quite controversial. It is better we do not
> touch this.
Sheng -
Yes, I see your point that "cannot get more addresses because they use
their block for semantic" would be considered an absolute directive. On
the other hand, we do want to be clear about the high possibility that
they will not be able to obtain additional address based on semantic use,
so a simple warning that incorporates both lower utility rate and the risk
of being potentially unable to obtain more address should suffice. Such
a statement in the draft would let the discussion continue focused on the
technical aspects of semantic prefixes, provides a fair warning to anyone
adopting the technology, and yet keeps open the possibility of any outcome
from future RIR discussions of this technology.
Thanks!
/John
Disclaimers: My views alone. No semantics are encoded in my underlying
network packets (I already have enough work keeping useful
semantic meaning at the application layer... :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
