On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 15:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > The observation is that even though the /8 space contains
> > 1.1 trillion entries, there is a greater than 0.5 probability that there will
> > be a clash after some 1.2 million draws. Normally this would not matter in the
> > slightest, BUT the proposal also notes a potential to use these addresses
> > in the context of end point identifiers, and in such a case there is
> > a strict requirement for uniqueness, and my observation is that self-driven
> > random choice is inadequate. Its not a paradox risk. Its just the underlying
> > mathematics of random draw probabilities.
>
> The question is whether we think that risk is acceptable to an individual site.
> The odds are much worse than would be acceptable in a cryptographic context,
> but I don't think that is the right criterion. After all, whatever pseudo-random
> value I use, you can copy and spoof anyway - that's a much greater risk than
> random collision, even with millions of values in use.
I've been working on implementing IPv6 for multi-access capable cell
phones. The number game gets rather different if you start with the
assumption of maybe 1 billion multi-access terminals deployed world-wide
within the next few years. This quickly leads to the conclusion that
anything not guaranteed to be unique must be treated as ambiguous.
Unless uniqueness can be guaranteed, I don't see a way around the
requirement of having a fully scoped IPv6 implementation in these
terminals. Any host operating system that tries to enable users to take
full advantage of wireless connectivity will be faced with the same
dilemma. Ditto application developers.
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
