But nothing in what you have said is inconsistent with the proposition that
there is _no_ requirement to allocate IPv6 unicast address space for this
form of use of 128 numbers.
As you yourself point out "they are non-routeable" and theya re understood
to be "semantically different".
i.e. what you are going with the number in this context is really
interesting, and a Good Thing in terms of furthering our understanding of
the implications of the identifier / locator split. But I have yet to see a
justification as to why these numbers should also entail a reservation in
the IPv6 unicast number space. Indeed, I can think of some tolerable
arguments as to why they should deliberately clash with unicast address values.
regards,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
