I didn't assume that the identifier space with no locator overtones must be non-intersecting with a routable network space.
Are you saying that use of these identifiers must only apply to isolated nets? Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Huston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 5:54 PM > To: Manfredi, Albert E > Cc: Internet Area; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Re: KHIs and SHA-256 > > Don't present such packets to the router. > > i.e. if you are working in an identifier space that has no locator > overtones (I have already seen the assertion that these > identifiers are > "non-routeable"), then how exactly will these identity values > show up in a > packet on the wire and be presented to routers are a > destination or source > locator? > > Geoff > > > > > > > At 08:03 AM 15/11/2005, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > >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 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
