Subject: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-semantic-prefix-01.txt

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:04:21 +0000

Hi, all,

We have submitted a new draft draft-jiang-semantic-prefix, "Semantic IPv6 Prefix". It proposes a framework to allow semantics to be embedded into prefix so that ISPs and enterprise can easily apply relevant operations accordingly.

All comments are welcome.

Best regards,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 6:03 PM
> To: Sheng Jiang
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-semantic-prefix-01.txt
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-jiang-semantic-prefix-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Sheng Jiang and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Filename:	 draft-jiang-semantic-prefix
> Revision:	 01
> Title:		 Semantic IPv6 Prefix
> Creation date:	 2012-07-16
> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 11
> URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-semantic-prefix-01.txt
> Status:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-semantic-prefix
> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-semantic-prefix-01
> Diff:
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-jiang-semantic-prefix-01
> 
> Abstract:
>    Some Internet Service Providers and enterprises desire to be aware of
>    more information about each packet, so that packets can be treated
>    differently and efficiently. Packet-level differentiating can also
>    enable flow-level and user-level differentiating.
> 
>    IPv6, with a large address space, allows semantics to be embedded
>    into addresses. Routers can easily apply relevant operations
>    accordingly. This document provides analysis on how to form semantic
>    prefix and corresponding use cases, and identifies the technical
>    requirements to maximize the benefits of the semantic prefix
>    approach. It is recommended to use 4~12 bits in prefix for embedded
>    semantics.
> 
>    This informational document only discusses usage of semantics in a
>    semantic prefix domain. It does NOT intent or suggest to standardize
>    any common global semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat