Re: not-routable prefix for CBIDs

[Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@xxxxxxx>]

Francis Dupont wrote:
> As it seems we won't have enough time I explain here my idea about
> a not-routable prefix for CBIDs:
>  - there are some uses of cryptographically generated identifiers
>    (the details are not important, they can considered as identifiers
>     with random bits)
>  - these identifiers follow the IPv6 address format, mainly in order
>    to be handled by common APIs
>  - these identifiers are not addresses so should be very easy to be
>    recognized as they are, for instance they are not-routable
>  - IMHO the best is to give them a dedicated prefix in the IPv6
>    address space
>  - the only real constraint is the length of the prefix: IANA advice
>    is 16 bit length
>  - so my question is how to procedd, possible concerns, etc.

What would you use them for?

They might be interesting as an unreachable ULID in the multi6 context, 
but do you see a use other than that?

   Erik

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------