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

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   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?
   
=> no, HBA idea has two parts:
 - an instance of the extensions (for this part HBAs are a subclass of CGAs)
 - a pseudo-public key (this removes only the ownership stuff, not
   the verification, of course this is optional).
All the hash and signature stuff is exactly the same, so the IID(s).

   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?

=> HBAs with a real private/public key pair which are an extension of CGAs.

   Which addresses would it put in the DNS for itself?
   
=> the HBAs.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr