[v6ops] some comments about the draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix
"Tianle Yang" <yangtianle@chinamobile.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 04:19 UTC
Return-Path: <yangtianle@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AC621E8083 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.038
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_221=2.222]
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 L1pEZsdbeR3W for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta.chinamobile.com (cmccmta.chinamobile.com [221.176.64.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E03221E8087 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.20.12]) by rmmx-oa_allagent02-12002 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee251df839ef5d-95f5d; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:18:39 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee251df839ef5d-95f5d
Received: from yangtianle (unknown[10.2.52.138]) by rmsmtp-oa_rmapp02-12002 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee251df839ad1c-1cb0c; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:18:39 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee251df839ad1c-1cb0c
From: Tianle Yang <yangtianle@chinamobile.com>
To: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:19:31 +0800
Message-ID: <009e01ce7eb7$01dbcca0$059365e0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009F_01CE7EFA.0FFF0CA0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac5+twFkR9tFJVECQVKydAhCcanoxA==
Content-Language: zh-cn
Subject: [v6ops] some comments about the draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:19:51 -0000
Although it is a little more convenient to do some operations when including some Use's properties in the IPv6 prefix, it may affect the routing table, such as changing some routings according to the changes of the use's QoS. And if we do not accept these changes, we have to put more IPv6 addresses in the address pool in one equipment, that causes address waste. And according to the discussion in the last IETF meeting , shall we merge this draft and "draft-ma-v6ops-ipv6-address-assignment " together? The link is below: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ma-v6ops-ipv6-address-assignment-00.txt Tianle