Re: [v6ops] Comments to draft-mlevy-v6ops-auto-v6-allocation-per-asn

On 2/20/13 2:20 PM, Bill Jouris wrote:
> Owen,
>
> So what you seem to be saying is: If manufacturers want to use a 
> specific part of their company allocation of addresses to give 
> addresses to the cars that they make based on VIN numbers, that is up 
> to them.  But IETF should not mandate allocating part of the overall 
> spectrum of addresses to them.
>
The assignment of global unicast v6 addresses to Registries, LIRs, 
service providers and direct assignments is done elsewhere.

We have examples of aircraft and other large structures such as 
airports/tunnels and buildings receiving prefixes from their 
manufacturers which had originally been obtained from RIRs.
> If so, perhaps we should at least suggest to the SAE (Society of 
> Automotive Engineers), which makes standards for that industry, that 
> they look at whether it makes sense for all of the companies to take a 
> uniform approach to how they do that.
>
> Bill Jouris
> Inside Products, Inc.
> www.insidethestack.com
> 831-659-8360
> 925-855-9512 (direct)
>
>
>     > On Feb 19, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com
>     </mc/compose?to=owen@delong.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     I do not support allocating globally unique prefixes for things
>     that are not networks.
>
>     Perhaps that will better explain my position.
>
>     I think that overloading the IPv6 prefix space with semantics for
>     arbitrary collections of things is a really bad idea that has
>     tremendous potential to consume vast amounts of addresses while
>     yielding no network benefit in return.
>
>     Will it exhaust the IPv6 space immediately, probably not. Could we
>     easily exhaust the ASN space if we start promoting the idea of
>     claiming ASNs to support this? Yeah, we could probably burn 4
>     billion ASNs that way without too much trouble.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops