Pekka, > Pekka Nikander wrote: > "Good enough" ones are easy to generate without too > much human intervention, for example, without any > connection to the registry. OTOH, they are not > necessarily unique, and therefore not "good enough" > for some people. IMHO, both types are needed.
Agreed. > In any case, a modest suggestion: Let's separate > the GUPI prefix generation and registration processes, > and make them sequential. I have another suggestion: Let's split the FEC0::/10 space in two parts: One for the unregistered "good-enough" and one for the registered truly unique. By default, the "good enough" would be used and a random/hash method would be used. But the network administrator would have a choice of getting a truly unique registered prefix instead. This would likely need to access some web page and pay a nominal fee. If the address space is split, then we have a guarantee that the hash process used for "good enough" will not grab addresses in the range that is used for truly unique. It is clear that the biggest the block for "good enough", the lesser potential collisions. Therefore the truly unique addresses should use only a modest portion of the FEC0::/10 block and leave the lion's share to the hash algorithm. Thoughts? Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
