Subject: not-routable prefix for CBIDs

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:31:46 +0100

As it seems we won't have enough time I explain here my idea about
a not-routable prefix for CBIDs:
 - there are some uses of cryptographically generated identifiers
   (the details are not important, they can considered as identifiers
    with random bits)
 - these identifiers follow the IPv6 address format, mainly in order
   to be handled by common APIs
 - these identifiers are not addresses so should be very easy to be
   recognized as they are, for instance they are not-routable
 - IMHO the best is to give them a dedicated prefix in the IPv6
   address space
 - the only real constraint is the length of the prefix: IANA advice
   is 16 bit length
 - so my question is how to procedd, possible concerns, etc.

Regards

[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:23:08 -0800

>  - so my question is how to procedd, possible concerns, etc.

What would you use them for?

They might be interesting as an unreachable ULID in the multi6 context, 
but do you see a use other than that?

    Erik

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:21:38 -0800

> but do you see a use other than that?

HIP HITs (even though they recently gave up on trying to
reserve the topmost 2 bits and went with full 128 bit HITs).
But this conversation has not happened in HIP, I believe.

-gabriel

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:35:44 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> draft-castelluccia-mobileip-privacy-00.txt (we are resuming
work about this)

=> IMHO there are a lot of possible usages so it is better to ask
for all than only for a particular idea.

Thanks

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:47:01 +0100

=> 128 bit IDs require a dedicated API... An easy to recognize
prefix works with current APIs but leave less bits for the ID
part, this is why the first thing we've done is to get some advice
from the IANA about the length of the prefix.

Thanks