Re: Comments on draft-bagnulo-multi6dt-hba-00.txt

[Mohan Parthasarathy <mohanp@sbcglobal.net>]

Erik,

> Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:
> 
> > I don't have any problems with IIDs being
> different :-) But i was more
> > trying to understand the compatibility problem. 
> Multi6 module anyway
> > has to do different processing if the address is a
> HBA address or
> > if it is a CGA/HBA address. Now you can still use
> the same format for
> > generating a single IID for all the prefixes e.g.
> using all zeroes or all
> > ones for the subnet prefix field of the CGA
> parameters data structure.
> > (but including the multi-prefix extension at the
> end as specified now)
> > Assuming we can find such a thing, would it be
> considered simpler ?
> 
> But then the IID(s) needed for SeND would be
> different than the IID(s) 
> needed for multi6, right?
> 
> Then which of the addresses (with which IDD) would a
> host which wants to 
> take advantage of both SeND and multi6 at the same
> time use?
> Which addresses would it put in the DNS for itself?
> 
If you want to have an address that can be used both
by SEND and Multi6, then you would generate an address
that includes both the public key and multi-prefix
extension as defined now. But my original question
was more specific to HBA addresses that can be
generated for all prefixes with the same identifier.
HBA only addresses anyway requires slightly
different processing. So, i don't know what
the issue is with generating the same identifier,
if needed or someone finds a use for it.

I realize that if a node wants to use SEND and multi6,
then the easy way to do is to generate a CGA/HBA
address. Otherwise the issues that you raise above
needs to be solved.

-mohan


>      Erik
>