Hi,
[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.
Right, the draft proposes to get an allocation from IPv6 unicast
space to allow the addresses to be distinguished from the rest of the
address space.
I see two issues. The first is to make sure there are enough
cautionary words in the draft to insure no one thinks these are
intended to be put into packets and routed. The general topic of
allocating addresses that are not CIDR routable has caused a lot of
controversy in the past (e.g., ULA discussions).
The second is that while it is may be OK to allocate a block of IPv6
addresses for this experiment, I don't think we would want to have
multiple experiments all wanting a separate allocation. I was
thinking we could allocate a block of IPv6 non-routable addresses for
experimental purposes and this proposal could then use that block.
This would allow other experiments to use the addresses at the same
time.
Bob
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
