Geoff, How would a router know not to forward such packets, in the event the top 64 bits clash with a real IPv6 address?
Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Huston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 3:11 PM > To: Pekka Nikander > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Brian Haberman; Internet Area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Re: KHIs and SHA-256 > > 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
