Re: [Hipsec] The HIT prefix once again (was Re: Re: Type 1 and 2 HITs)

Francis,

> HIP is not the only protocol which could take avantage from
> a dedicated prefix marked as not an address/not routable.
> I wrote a short I-D draft-dupont-ipv6-cgpref-01.txt which could
> work for at least HIP and a TMSI-like location privacy solution
> for MIPv6. I consulted IANA at an IETF meeting just before writing
> the first version....
>
> I believe it could be better to share the prefix with other (and
> with weaker requirements) usages, i.e., to win one bit (2 x) at the
> cost of 1/8?...
>
> so you need an I-D. IMHO it will be easier with a short one than
> with an "en passant" paragraph in a HIP architecture one....
>
> PS: if you agree to join us, we can ask the IPv6 WG chairs to poll
> the IPv6 WG about a WG item. I can't see technical concerns so it
> should be easy and the discussion (in the mailing list about the
> WG item) should only be about the length of the prefix.

In principle, I think it would be good to join forces, and at least  
make the cases at the same time rather than one after another.   
However, what HIP needs now is an experimental prefix which, IMHO,  
should have a default timeout after which it is returned to IANA  
unless the IETF decides otherwise.

I don't know what are your desires w.r.t the time frame for the  
prefix, i.e., whether you are trying to get a permanent prefix or  
just an assignment that would be returned unless the IETF decides  
otherwise.
There also may be differences in whether the prefix is supposed to  
ever get out in IPv6 headers.  In the HIP case it is not, i.e., it is  
supposed to appear only in HIP control packets in the network.

IMHO those two issues may make a big difference that may also have  
affect to the length of the prefix that the IPv6 WG and the IETF are  
willing to issue.

--Pekka

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec