Eliot Lear wrote: > As I wrote previously, one must understand the history in order to > understand its applicability to the future. The reason there was a > problem at all was that there was a not just a non-zero chance of an > address clash but that this percentage rose based based on > the class of > address chosen. If you took 80.1.4.6 you clashed with all of > 80 because > classless addressing had not made it into the base yet. The > chance of > this sort of clash in IPv6 is miniscule. Not that it's a good idea. >
Yes but most of the clashes were based on using Sun's or HP's addresses because those were published in documents. The lack of robust route filtering tools at the time made the likelyhood of real problems high. If we remove the definition of FEC0::, people will gravitate toward whatever shows up in documents, so the risk of collision at merger time is still high. > Even so, if you used upper range class B or C address space > the chance > of a clash at the time was low (still is). And indeed in the > case of a > merger you were better off than using net 10 because the > likelihood of > clash with net 10 is high. So you are suggesting that people just randomly pick space from 3a00:: since they should be long retired by the time we find the conflict? ;) Tony > > Eliot >
