<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hi,<div><br><div><div>On 25 Oct 2013, at 11:35, Shane Kerr <<a href="mailto:shane@time-travellers.org">shane@time-travellers.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">All,<br><br>We saw two presentations by network architects at the RIPE meeting that<br>used bits in their IPv6 addressing plan to carry meaning beyond simple<br>network topology and packet routing.<br><br>For example, declaring a specific bit in the address to be 1 for voice<br>traffic or 0 otherwise.<br><br>There are motivations for doing this, which may or may not be valid in<br>any particular case. There are ways to lessen the amount of addresses<br>consumed by this (for example by assigning /56 instead of /48 to end<br>users).<br><br>But I think that the important thing is that we have historically not<br>considered this sort of use with address allocation policy. In face,<br>RFC 2050bis was *just* published as RFC 7050:<br></blockquote></div><br></div><div>Seems ike more of </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-semantic-prefix-06">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-semantic-prefix-06</a></div><div><br></div><div>Which has drawn mixed reaction at the IETF.</div><div><br></div><div>Tim</div></body></html>