[ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?

Hi,

On 25 Oct 2013, at 11:35, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:

> All,
> 
> We saw two presentations by network architects at the RIPE meeting that
> used bits in their IPv6 addressing plan to carry meaning beyond simple
> network topology and packet routing.
> 
> For example, declaring a specific bit in the address to be 1 for voice
> traffic or 0 otherwise.
> 
> There are motivations for doing this, which may or may not be valid in
> any particular case. There are ways to lessen the amount of addresses
> consumed by this (for example by assigning /56 instead of /48 to end
> users).
> 
> But I think that the important thing is that we have historically not
> considered this sort of use with address allocation policy. In face,
> RFC 2050bis was *just* published as RFC 7050:

Seems ike more of 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-semantic-prefix-06

Which has drawn mixed reaction at the IETF.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20131026/318647a8/attachment.html>