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

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 6, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, John,
> 
> Thanks for your message. Yes, I will add lower address utility rate as one of the major pitfalls. However, I don't want to make an absolute statement of "cannot". As a neutral analysis, it is better to just make observation, such as "there is risk that they may not". We do not want to influence the RIR policy either way, which would be quite controversial. It is better we do not touch this.

Sheng - 
 
  Yes, I see your point that "cannot get more addresses because they use 
  their block for semantic" would be considered an absolute directive. On 
  the other hand, we do want to be clear about the high possibility that 
  they will not be able to obtain additional address based on semantic use, 
  so a simple warning that incorporates both lower utility rate and the risk
  of being potentially unable to obtain more address should suffice.  Such 
  a statement in the draft would let the discussion continue focused on the
  technical aspects of semantic prefixes, provides a fair warning to anyone 
  adopting the technology, and yet keeps open the possibility of any outcome 
  from future RIR discussions of this technology.

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimers: My views alone. No semantics are encoded in my underlying 
             network packets (I already have enough work keeping useful 
             semantic meaning at the application layer... :-)