IMHO, every identifier ends up being routed, at least in some context. For example, there is a good case that on a disconnected ad hoc network, it makes more sense to use the identifiers you have than to create some new addresses. Indeed, if one is willing to have individual host entries in a routing table, then one can use any identifier.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 3:40 PM To: Manfredi, Albert E Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Internet Area Subject: RE: [Int-area] Re: KHIs and SHA-256 I heard "non-routeable" with respect to these identifiers. Is this _really_ the case? Geoff At 10:03 AM 15/11/2005, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
