RE: [Int-area] Progress on draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt

"Dave Thaler" <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com> Sat, 03 June 2006 22:51 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fmexy-00065z-Uv; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 18:51:34 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fmexx-00065t-Mz for int-area@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 18:51:33 -0400
Received: from mailb.microsoft.com ([131.107.1.8] helo=mail3.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fmexw-0006Zy-9U for int-area@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 18:51:33 -0400
Received: from mailout5.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.148]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2706); Sat, 3 Jun 2006 15:51:31 -0700
Received: from tuk-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.70.27]) by mailout5.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2706); Sat, 3 Jun 2006 15:51:31 -0700
Received: from win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.39]) by tuk-hub-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 3 Jun 2006 15:51:30 -0700
Received: from WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.24]) by win-imc-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2706); Sat, 3 Jun 2006 15:51:30 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Progress on draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:51:27 -0700
Message-ID: <271CF87FD652F34DBF877CB0CB5D16FC010F70F8@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <44803AB6.5030201@piuha.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Progress on draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcaGRyVWvWhA+LNKTaaGwKbP6RvOLgBGAqqg
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2006 22:51:30.0786 (UTC) FILETIME=[413E7420:01C68760]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc:
X-BeenThere: int-area@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: int-area-bounces@lists.ietf.org

I think for this experiment a longer prefix is fine,
even /40 or /48 unless there's some strong reason it needs
to be shorter during the experiment.

Personally, I'd eventually like to see something like a /8
followed by an org id (like ULAs have).  Since ULAs have 32
bits for such an id, that's how I get /40 (or /48 if eventually
there were a /16 like ULAs use, followed by 32 bit org id).
This would solve some problems HIP doesn't solve today,
which were pointed out in the SHIM6 meeting in Dallas.
(e.g., PTR records for HITs aren't feasible today since
the reverse zone would be flat).

The use of a long prefix for the present experiment could
be consistent with such an eventuality in the sense that
the hash would be truncated to about the same number of bits 
(like 80 or 88).

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:19 AM
> To: Internet Area
> Subject: [Int-area] Progress on draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt
> 
> Sometime ago we discussed the allocation of an IPv6 prefix
> for the purposes of legacy applications using HIP (the
> ORCHID proposal). The key question in that discussion was
> whether a /8 allocation is justified for this type of an
> experiment. Since then we've had some off-line discussions
> with the folks who commented on this topic, to come up
> with alternatives to solve this issue. The proposal that
> seemed to be acceptable is to allocate a longer prefix
> (e.g. /28) as an IETF experimental allocation through
> IANA. The implication is that the public key hash would
> be truncated to 100 bits, presumably still within
> an acceptable range.
> 
> If you have an opinion about this matter, please send
> mail either here or on the HIP list before June 9th
> so that Julien can update his draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Jari
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area


_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area