RE: 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]>]

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.

Anyone care to comment?

Fred

From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 8:12 AM
To: 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)

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