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

Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <richih.mailinglist@gmail.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 919A921F91BC; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 xq6a1Pv91S-k; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x236.google.com (mail-wg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617C121F91BF; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id j13so2747214wgh.33 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=lqKl/P9qrwjme9Sh8yCnpbNxZt/aU5NxH/VA4uTCmEk=; b=ulv5FtKmxQyBPzsMsABRFHm0CCrWnCiOpcAYJp09TaKcNQKY3BVPQXnuM9g+bqb6MC SQwC7utMOtc367TlcULsFxeZb7cUlpkQKR8y2yL4JD7TbE19rTevPGN0rnSwo7Xp7jaa NVezOwDX0CTo+ZcNhDR8p9BaFvevOHBPC1lzMjL8LIsFspYXY7GVYRiPu4STto+TjU3Y Kh06ssuaAkpHIgw76I+upCzOglb5QG5finhJNMI3bFyBFCVX7Vy47Q5GX5O7lHxLI8gQ wYzbiCh3AS4wBd1SV9R5H6iTHvseCC/BwJroFtX0l7cnxM2j8GX8VEG7WjIBg67lUvbL IzbQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.11.166 with SMTP id r6mr560990wib.45.1370584992424; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.17.9 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.17.9 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9B71CE05-E12D-4FE9-8222-6FBFD7938F0C@delong.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>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:03:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAD77+gQv12nfuNEew8pKYRYdSk5ErHDbQ=FwgDW_-8TX5rtrdw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03
From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c248f09bc4d404de8a2fe9"
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "&lt, draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix@tools.ietf.org&gt, " <draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix@tools.ietf.org>, 6man List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 06:03:14 -0000

On Jun 6, 2013 8:58 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:

> While my statements in this forum are my opinion alone and not intended
to represent ARIN or the AC, I think I bring a pretty good knowledge of
both the letter and the intent of the policies as they exist today.

Thus, it should be easy for you to point out where the policy says this.
And easier to point to a discussion about the intent.

> If you claim you gave a customer a /48 and the customer reports that they
are not allowed to exercise control over the use of that /48, then, you
have not, in fact, delegated authority over that /48 as you have claimed to
ARIN and that is, in fact, resource fraud in violation of ARIN policy. I'm
not sure why you think this is an absurd claim.

While the customer may be allowed to use their prefix where and how they
please, the policy says nothing about forcing the ISP to route everything
everywhere.
The ISP would not disallow usage in any way, they would simply not route
according to arbitrary whims which are against their semantic policy.

As an aside, handing out /56 per customer and semantic unit will most
likely solve any real world problems. And if the customer really needs more
than 256 semantic contexts, or more than 256 /64 per semantic context, the
LIR can probably document and prove the need for more than a /48...

Richard

Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.