%% You should probably cite rfc7343 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05, number = {draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis/05/}, author = {Julien Laganier and Francis Dupont}, title = {{An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)}}, pagetotal = 12, year = 2013, month = dec, day = 11, abstract = {This document specifies an updated Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers format that obsoletes RFC4843. These identifiers are intended to be used as endpoint identifiers at applications and Application Programming Interfaces (API) and not as identifiers for network location at the IP layer, i.e., locators. They are designed to appear as application layer entities and at the existing IPv6 APIs, but they should not appear in actual IPv6 headers. To make them more like regular IPv6 addresses, they are expected to be routable at an overlay level. Consequently, while they are considered non-routable addresses from the IPv6 layer point-of-view, all existing IPv6 applications are expected to be able to use them in a manner compatible with current IPv6 addresses. The Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers originally defined in RFC4843 lacked a mechanism for cryptographic algorithm agility. The updated ORCHID format specified in this document removes this limitation by encoding in the identifier itself an index to the suite of cryptographic algorithms in use.}, }