> actually I'm fairly convinced that "nearly unique" would be good enough
> as long as we could convince people to actually assign random site
> prefixes instead of just choosing one (like all zeros or whatever).
>
> and they seem to have the "right" property regarding routability -
> the chance of collisions is so low that you can hook them up with
> a large number of other networks via private arrangement without
> fear of collision, but high enough that there's a clear incentive
> for ISPs to filter these things from routing advertisements.
>
> Keith
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
"nearly unique" is not good enough. You want to be able to
register these addresses in the ip6.arpa tree. You don't
want to force every site to manually configure the top of
their reverse tree into every nameserver in the organisation.
This will not work and will just result in reverse queries
for this address range hitting the ip6.arpa servers similar
to what happens with the RFC 1918 nets under in-addr.arpa.
We would then have to set up sacrificial servers as we don't
have anyone to point too to say "set up your reverse servers
as you are impacting on the ip6.arpa servers".
What does work is having truly unique addresses and delegating
the reverse servers.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
