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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Owen DeLong <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.

There are enough bits to do it in your first allocation. Whether you will be able to get a subsequent allocation when you run out without achieving sufficiently efficient utilization later due to the inefficiencies imposed by this particular style of use is the open question. Other than you, most posters seem to recognize that this is, in fact, a likely drawback.

Yes, we're aware that it's a drawback.   Consumption of address space is a drawback of using a 64-bit host identifier, too.   But it's not a strong argument against doing it.   You seem to feel _really_ strongly about this; is it really the case that your only objection is that you think it's not possible for an ISP to get enough bits to do it?