Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

At least in my opinion it is a GUA, GUAs of prefix length /64 and /128 are
both completely legal, it is in between the two that violate the /64 rule.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 10:14 AM Templin (US), Fred L <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, I have seen the discussion on LLA/ULA/GUA and even think I understand
> it. But,
>
> I’d like to add another twist to the discussion. There is another “kind”
> of IPv6 address
>
> called the “HIT” defined in RFC7401, and a variant called the “HHIT” that
> is defined
>
> in ‘draft-ietf-drip-rid’. These addresses use a common GUA prefix (shorter
> than /64)
>
> with the remainder of the address containing a cryptographically generated
> suffix.
>
> They therefore resemble GUAs, but they are not aggregatable so at best
> could be
>
> used as host routes. The documents are vague on whether the (H)HIT is
> assigned
>
> to an interface (which is a necessary property of any IPv6 address), but
> if they were
>
> couldn’t the (H)HIT be used as an IPv6 source/destination address within a
> limited
>
> scope – perhaps in an edge network that deals only with host routes? If
> so, then
>
> where would (H)HIT fall in terms of the scoped addressing architecture?
>
>
>
> Fred
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================