On 14-Oct-21 22:41, Ted Hardie wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:28 PM Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Including semantics *of any kind* in an IP address is a very fundamental > change to the concept of IP.<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> > > > Would you mind elaborating what you mean by semantics in the statement above? > Clearly there are semantics in things like the IPv4 multicast and > experimental address ranges (aka "Class D" and "Class E"); especially for the > multicast case, the very fundamental semantics of the distribution are > signalled using the address and there has been significant deployment using > those semantics. Isn't that semantics in the meaning above?
Yes, I should have restricted my remark to *unicast* addresses. But there is a difference, I think, between semantics that describe the *type of address* and semantics that actively describe *what the recipient is going to do*. It's the latter that I was getting at. (This applies to Carsten's comment too. Port numbers or multiple addresses per host are not actively describing what the recipient will do; they're just numbers.) Also, I tried not to express shock and horror at the notion of semantics in address, but concern about how this will impact existing hardware and software. > > Thanks for any clarification, > > Ted > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
