I think you have mixed two things.
You ahve the ability to abuse the standards any way you like in your own
home (assuming you program your own devices). The IETF is not the
protocol police.
Operators have the ability to do whatever they want with their networks,
and the IETF has no right or ability to stop them. (I consider
Terastream an example of this.)
However, when someone asks the IETF to standardize a behavior, that is a
different game. The IETF does have a right to question whether a given
use in a standard is appropriate, correct, consistent, or even whether
it is a good idea.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/27/19 11:23 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Joel,
Imagine I get IPv4 /28 block or IPv6 /64 block of address space.
Isn't it my own business how I map and to what I map my non globally
routable last bits of such address ?
Does anyone care - specifically would IETF have right to care - if one
/32 or /128 address is used in my house to turn on the AC or coffee
machine and some other to turn it off ?
Those would be my embedded functions in IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Of
course there is tons of other ways to achieve such functions but those
are just examples for illustration purposes.
Cheers,
R.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 5:14 PM Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Actually Robert, a number of people have suggested on the 6man lsit
that
the overloading of IPv6 addresses to also represent functions to be
performed is a problem. And have put proposals on the table to get out
of the problem rather than just pretending is a good idea.
Yours,
Joel
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
