IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 9FA9321F93E0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 18:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.077
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 rkEF95a8yTSH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 18:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x231.google.com (mail-qa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34D021F93C4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 18:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id hu16so746217qab.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=wDzzN22TtQyWrtE1vt02fx3tMuWnMyUELr7ENEmeUds=; b=OEsz9dvGjWVM1aqPVGek0zUHS5vLUFiCKw8VDZvBTUW6DcSMmB/fxWDSo91rMK33qN cnfiVgC8SrGBVz2effNlvOwKE0gE+t7GMZkqx3h6PeG5iaP2D+Oi+hCGQbs5pQV9KX1s UdbHX7XvPTwfCg9shXrUnzIjEXrxnuoBNVzKtVXzM6b3TGjiN1/Ys7apfntk7IdiJft1 XPZumK1SQqmbmkACgk1tos5iWd8DnumHq4JmPIMxQKt/Du0OfKKlwAdIWCfdb6d2VDFP Fb3wQbIXZyrVZzdRhzZsAbpg1AwjjdRpY8aPLRt5WuE2UGtVhHI5mxeM6+9YU3yk9wPM JB8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=wDzzN22TtQyWrtE1vt02fx3tMuWnMyUELr7ENEmeUds=; b=PDKj1sWSL19EfMn4YNKURP/+JnYcjYL0s3JVWcHWDWWMChwja49oQZb2qIHWzvTp+R ZGPEeCcbwwZCM1+K4SBXGJNFNCS/kDneyVfelcd/DHpAfg/1+pZrNYGmUd3V4WHYJTls eRJFfYqxzPyjOKt5KI483mXUAmwgzE7Tud4oDFeDsIiOY3r0wnuxJS/ftm072n9wUMu1 TNrmqo171r1mxNvZ7lSHzPS/CXQB7tJDPvQS9g+oVvW/tc9MZ+jlRMoHJQOq2bsVEkgi FGSTi9kJOx6n0tqUfkmxK6wG9FXhnmYTt28nEFisg/4EEtghJ4N3fDkWdXvc9GEvK1we miGA==
X-Received: by 10.49.101.74 with SMTP id fe10mr13230268qeb.11.1370569130132; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.158.8 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 18:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751C850C@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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:38:30 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0Y2_-k0sj=RsSicubJT6dUq7FJDvBoCv5h_DUTjY9ZOw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2c6ce2472e804de867ed4"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQknEHo2z83ReBJNBJhnwMfCoGoQan2rKEyIAc7Phk802vE0IrC7XS5Q2O0Blpy8IVWFpb0J+phEZrrXXQxNEO/rNgqfBa31QM5prm8sqXUKW9KFwL8SxFlXFcAwogf+EAxSQHjnVHP9RDY7D/hw0OPfkuLESCPl387xGmVK15j9KIa/3oZ58Yocai+6gtpEHAR3wiEy
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 01:38:51 -0000

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

>  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.
>
>
> Because you haven't cited a policy that substantiates it, despite claiming
> to have written the policy that would say this.
>

What about the APNIC policy I cited a few emails ago? You have not
explained why you think it supports your point of view that using semantic
bits does not make it harder for ISPs to assign /48s to users.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email