[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-bagnulo-multi6dt-hba-00.txt
--- Erik Nordmark <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:
> > If you want to have an address that can be used
> > by SEND and Multi6, then you would generate an
> > 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
> > 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.
> OK - sorry for misunderstanding.
> I think Marcelo stated the issues today.
> What do you see as the benefit of having the same
> iid for all prefixes?
None :-) I was only trying to find out the reason
as to why this can't be done or easily supported
without changing the format. I am fine with having
different IID for different prefixes. The reason
that we don't want to support same IID could be
that we don't see any use for it or that it is
simplicity or something else. I was just trying
to understand that.