On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:58:43 +0200 "EricLKlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Chown wrote > > > > It is not unlikely that people will be lazy and just use fd00::/48 for > sites, > > and thus add back in great ambiguity to the probabilisticly unique address > > space. > > First you ask a question, and then answer it. I am concerned that the many > network "experts" out there that are trained in a 2 week certification > course will take what is taught to them as an example and will make it > gospel, and thus use the exact same addresses in multiple networks in close > geographic proximity, and thus on the same Carrier edge router. Consider > what happens when a carrier implements IPv6 in a city, and suddenly there > are 10 companies connected by inexperienced network "experts" (and they have > the certificate to prove it) that all follow the exact same course > "template". Now this one carrier edge router is connected to 10 incorrectly > configured routers all using the exact same "probabilistically unique > address". this is where the original need for RFC1918 came from. That is an education problem, not a technical one. They weren't taught what they needed, or should have expected to be taught. They need to ask their training provider for their money back. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
