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

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Fernando,

Then, let's have a scope for "MANET-local" scope which is what you get when
you have a small collection of (probably) mobile nodes that form a network
between themselves without the support of any infrastructure. I think HITs
would make for fine IPv6 addresses within the MANET-local scope, but if the
MANET ever connects to the global Internet then nodes will also want to get
a *real* GUA (served by the infrastructure) to go along with the HIT they
already have.

Did I mention HITs are self-generated, and not delegated by some
infrastructure node?

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:53 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-
> ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
> 
> 
> On 18/2/21 16:46, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> [...]
> >>
> >> Hi, Fred,
> >>
> >> On 18/2/21 16:11, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> On 18/2/21 14:37, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> >>>>> Another aspect I failed to mention is that the use of (H)HITs does not
> >>>>> necessarily  mean that all aspects of the HIP protocol must be used. (H)HITs could be
> >>>>> used with the AERO/OMNI services instead, for example.
> >>>>
> >>>> Questions: Are these addresses globally-unique?
> >>>
> >>> Yes - global uniqueness is a key objective of (H)HIT. Aggregation is not within
> >>> scope, however.
> >>
> >> If that's the case, then, according to RFC4007, they are global addresses.
> >
> > I actually think HITs are a bit of a gray area. According to RFC7343, they are
> > formed from the GUA prefix 2001:20::/28 but the remaining bits following
> > the ::/28 prefix are cryptographically generated and hence non-aggregatable.
> 
> BUt according to RFC4007, the scope is defined by the topological span
> where the address is meaningful....
> 
> 
> > That means that there is no way to represent a group of them in the routing
> > system using any other prefix length than /128.
> 
> That's not a requirement when it comes to "scope".
> 
> 
> 
> >> (I'd argue that if they cannot be aggregated, that's because they
> >> resulting "addresses" are not really topologically-dependent, in which
> >> case you might probably argue that they are not addresses in the first
> >> place :-) )
> >
> > Not in terms of routing across the global Internet, no, because it would not
> > scale to inject large numbers of /128's into the global Internet routing system.
> 
> The thing is that if they don't represent a location in the network
> topology, they don't seem to qualify as an address, anyway.
> 
> An address is supposed to be a topologically-dependent identifier --
> i.e., to convey information of location ("where?").
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
>