IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-sun-v6ops-semantic-usecase

Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bingxuere@gmail.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 92DC221F8700 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:59:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.428, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bKIOAw-xo5X6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com (mail-ob0-f175.google.com [209.85.214.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC80421F8702 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:59:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uz6so7456305obc.6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:59:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=G7MCYxw+V93cdbnPdZKKpIGghEynJTzumlkF5DgVfXo=; b=Dk9smzZot2VnydlvvMv+WysGJiQl56sI1BBSETXL7yS+0idyo6ZiCFs/mdmPatBOxJ nKggJ8tBYzH05x2dcCkDOzlTcqTQZKHBEmDMFKkH4MuOM6hphz7RIW/l8Tj0hzbHjHvz aM2lExVLCHU692RKSpU+NywvDkMUKWuHYHSChk01J9uRRU8YUlSLo2MRr11alSx70vF9 yDLG/y5RFebfBIekhcXYhlXk0X9wLkgxOKSLmQoOQE9xvj6zRAiiA2cI5cdaEINsv3SN 2TNhtoFprXG4FiAVpm3NahkkWY0pdUchqUDazH88jimM4BvhtUsqG+EY50iqtjePVu/y GnUA==
X-Received: by 10.182.157.104 with SMTP id wl8mr3678302obb.79.1361354398557; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:59:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.80.133 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:59:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <51232CA8.9070204@bogus.com>
References: <201302171345.r1HDj0I02968@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <51217464.5030507@bogus.com> <CAH3bfACTXunk4eg6ZoDX1WbKm6w8f5W8bBJyDMMEer50t6x6CA@mail.gmail.com> <51232CA8.9070204@bogus.com>
From: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:59:17 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH3bfAB75t_NafnXK2e1e48q9f+TucXbmiPN3uoh=WV1B_dSvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d044281a056e56d04d6250520"
Cc: draft-sun-v6ops-semantic-usecase <draft-sun-v6ops-semantic-usecase@tools.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-sun-v6ops-semantic-usecase
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:59:59 -0000

Hi Joel,

Please see inline :)

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:41 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:

> On 2/18/13 6:44 AM, Qiong wrote:
>
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> I agree with you semantic prefix will have limitations in real world
>> deployment. We will improve the limitation part and clearly clarify the
>> scope for which operators should take in the next version.
>>
>>  I particular  I think it would be particularly undesirable but from a
> policy and address assignment perspective if providers were to up the size
> of their assignment requests using a justification of more semantic bits
> required. Where does that thought experiemnt end?
>
[Qiong] Sorry I do not quite understand your meaning. Do you mean operators
may ask more semantic bits from address assignment community ? Our major
purpose is to decide how to design the IPv6 prefix when the operator has
already get the IPv6 address pool. It is mainly used within a local region.
Would you please explain a bit more ?

Thanks in advance!

Best wishes
Qiong

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email