Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting and IPv15

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sat, 11 August 2012 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFB621F85FC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.066
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x2SaaPkbW-Kj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E49921F857D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local (66.sub-166-250-37.myvzw.com [166.250.37.66]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7BHkWvG099622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:46:33 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <50269A73.6020304@bogus.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:46:27 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120731 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting and IPv15
References: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22726A0C08@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <CAA=duU0_L9PUdJdFYzmQgpKSpCxcpiBfYE8Tj50+UQpyuLF6vA@mail.gmail.com> <C2796AD0-6361-4EE0-B97B-5443D685215F@virtualized.org> <CAF4+nEEKjSpfyDGPaYeJE6XaG9u4GZPkW5eft94MVgyM3_hxMw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEEKjSpfyDGPaYeJE6XaG9u4GZPkW5eft94MVgyM3_hxMw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:46:33 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:46:43 -0000

On 8/11/12 10:13 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> One problem with excessively large fields, including variable length
> addresses with a high maximum length, is that the next time someone
> wants to encode some additional information, they just tuck it inside
> that field in some quasi-proprietary way, instead of going to the
> trouble of actually adding a field. Witness X.509 Certificate "serial
> numbers", which are arbitrary precision integers, but which frequently
> are used for a variety of information, all BER encoded...
given various semantic uses of bits within ipv6 addresses that have been 
proposed or which are used informally even with only 128 bits it's 
important to make this distinction. a freely extensible bit field will 
end up with all sorts of garbage in it, that at best is only signficant 
in one context, and at worse is significant in different fashions in 
different contexts.

instead of having an locator-id you have a 
locator-qos-mpls-subscriberid-streetaddress-latlong-id
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>   155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>   d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:22 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Another alternative is self-describing variable-length addresses,
>>> again do it once and we'll never have to worry about it again.
>> Heretic!  That's OSI speak!  Why do you hate the Internet you ISO/ITU lackey?!?
>>
>> </flashback>
>>
>> Yeah, variable-length addresses would have been nice. There was even working code. Maybe next IPng.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>