At 09:47 AM 11/11/2005, Pekka Nikander wrote:
[Dropping HIP WG from CC; still including IPv6 though...]
My understanding is that these are not routable addresses. That
is, they won't appear in routing protocol exchanges or routing
tables. If that is the case, then we are talking about the
allocation of something different than IPv6 addresses.
you are right: not only they are not routable but they should be
easy to be recognized as not routable.
To clarify: if we decide to define this prefix, it will mean that the
particular prefix will be generally unavailable for routing, as there
will be hosts that will use the prefix at the API level.
Consequently, if you want to talk to those hosts, you cannot use the
prefix in the network.
Hence, even though the prefix is not assumed to appear in the wire,
defining this does effect on what bits can(not) be used in the wire.
But _nothing_ in what you have posted so far justifies and _address allocation_
From HIP's perspective _they are just numbers_ as they are identities, not
locators.
Geoff
(The IAB had a draft for a while about identities, and then the IAB decided
to drop it on the floor. Seems like it could sure come in useful here in
terms of outlining to some IAB folk the difference between locators and
identifiers!)
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
