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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
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.

The policy says that if you want to assign something bigger than a /48 to an end site, you have to explain why it's necessary.   If you get more bits but don't assign them to the end site, that doesn't relate to the text you cited.   If you get enough bits to assign a /48 to the end site, and assign special meaning to some of those bits, that's not covered by the text.   The text simply doesn't speak to this issue.   I do not get the impression from reading the text that semantic bits are not allowed, or that an ISP's desire to use semantic bits will not be accommodated.   Apparently you do, but I don't see it in there anywhere.

Which goes back to the point I am apparently failing badly at getting across: we aren't talking about a core issue here.   If semantic prefixes are a bad idea, they are a bad idea because of some reason other than bits.

This is a really frustrating conversation.   I don't claim to know whether semantic prefix bits are a good idea or a bad idea.   I really don't know.   I haven't heard a single convincing argument for or against them yet, because we keep beating this dead horse that there aren't enough bits, despite the fact that there obviously are.