On Nov 15, 2005, at 13:40, Geoff Huston wrote:
At 08:04 PM 15/11/2005, Pekka Nikander wrote:Christian,=> the draft is supposed to address both issues. For the first one we can add more cautionary words if one believes there are not yet enough. For the second one we already merged two very different experiments into one request.Well, if that is what we want, then we can write a much simpler draft,"reserving a prefix for non routable identifiers". It will have essentially one or two paragraph of text, plus the usual ten pages of boiler text.Its a simple draft, but it still makes absolutely no sense to me to me in terms of relating to to an address allocation. If these token values are in fact "non routable identifiers" , which is what I read above, then you have no semantic intersection with the conventional address space and you can set up a "non-routeable identifier" register and allocate unique identifier tokens according to any distribution criteria that makes sense according to the intended use.
Another benefit of a separate registry for IDs is the removal of the size
concern (mentioned as a reason for the request of a /3). As completely separate from addresses, these identifiers could be even larger than 128 bits. And this would increase their strength as cryptographic entities. Regards, Brian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
