IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B364721F8618; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.82
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.82 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 dNEB-11xh7Xi; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB59421F8617; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUbHez9ZOcN19r+O9uuwq+uE3KqAsYFJg@postini.com; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 06:23:35 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A255E1B8050; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A7719005D; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:23:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:23:27 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03
Thread-Index: AQHOXm45WoMnwVBJ2U2+cujDGH1pcpkgllOAgAAGw4CAAIlogIAAHNkAgAA7XoCAANwAAIAAGRcAgACZEACAAFFqgIAAA0MAgAAlngCAAERTAIAAmIuAgAAWAQCAALv5gIAAMI2AgACc9YCAACD6gIAAH1gAgACZeoCAAAjegIAAwruAgAAV84CAAAZKgIAAAigAgAC9mQCAAIcfgIAAe8GAgABs5wCAAAM+AIAABHyAgAAM34CAALOaAA==
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:23:26 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C90F7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <05DB0BDC-9B6D-4852-B878-5320ABC14D67@steffann.nl> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C5A63@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr1tSy9XZ5A8Zc-doBTfWiPX1TkqGuJeqty9=mhwwHPRKA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C6F61@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <9B71CE05-E12D-4FE9-8222-6FBFD7938F0C@delong.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C850C@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr0Y2_-k0sj=RsSicubJT6dUq7FJDvBoCv5h_DUTjY9ZOw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C86DF@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr0EQwqEzPe_FK+XnN+mOGaVU2NWW2Sr5toGZhKiMwkW2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0EQwqEzPe_FK+XnN+mOGaVU2NWW2Sr5toGZhKiMwkW2A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C90F7mbx01winnominum_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "<draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix@tools.ietf.org>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:23:42 -0000

On Jun 6, 2013, at 10:40 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com<mailto:lorenzo@google.com>> wrote:
Like almost everything things in engineering, it's a cost/benefit tradeoff. This discussion about "not enough bits" is simply attempting to quantify some of the costs involved. I keep harping about it because the cost is NOT zero, and I think the document should cite that cost and compare the costs/benefits to alternative approaches like using DSCP (which *does* have zero cost in addressing). We do that analysis, we write it down, and then we can decide if it's a good idea or not.

Argh.   I don't think anybody ever said that there was no cost to these bits, and I agree that the cost should be discussed.   So I guess we've been arguing over a nonexistent disagreement!   :|

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email