Avun,

but I think it would be preferable
if this section:

,----
| 3.  Routing Considerations
|
| Keyed Hash Identifiers are designed to serve as identifiers rather
|    than locators.  Therefore, routers SHOULD NOT forward any packets
|    containing a KHI as a source or a destination address.  If the
|    destination address is a KHI but the source address is a valid
|    unicast source address, an ICMP Destination Unreachable,
|    Administratively Prohibited message MAY be generated.
|
| Note that while KHIs are designed to be non-routable at the IP layer, | there are ongoing research efforts for creating overlay routing for
|    these kinds of identifiers.  For example, the Host Identity
| Indirection Infrastructure (Hi3) proposal outlines a way for using a
|    Distributed Hash Table to forward HIP packets based on the Host
|    Identity Tag.
`----

was rewritten a lot more like RFC3849 (IPv6 Docu Prefix), Section 3
Operational Implications.

I am really open to changing the wording; please provide a ready thought suggestion.

Placing a requirement directly on routers is a lot tougher than placing a requirement on the operators. To support the current wording, every router vendor would have to update their code, and then every customer would have to upgrade every single router. This of course, would then have to be possibly
undone come January 1st 2009.

What comes this concern, I tried to write the text in such a way that a simple configuration change would be sufficient, i.e., configure the router not to forward the packets, and possibly have it return ICMP unreachable. I certainly didn't intend to require routers to be changed; that is unrealistic.

Indeed, if the prefix was allocated from 1000::/4 as suggested, then I think most router configurations would already now do the right thing. But I may also be way off here; I'm mostly out of touch with current IPv6 operational matters.

--Pekka Nikander


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to