What a coincidence indeed! I think you've hit on a fine solution - since these are for intra-enterprise use we'll just do what makes sense for us, knowing the risks we take. Thanks for letting me bounce this idea around.
End of thread. Spence > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:25 PM > To: John Spence > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Can I generate a prefix shorter than /48 using > <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-09.txt>? > > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, John Spence wrote: > > So, in 99% of cases, I suppose, the multiple /48s would > work. It just > > might not be quite as clean. If you said to a site "you can either > > generate yourself FD85:19EA:73C8::/47, or you can generate and use > > FD85:19EA:73C8::/48 and FD1B:9567:CD12::/48", enterprises > would choose > > a contiguous /47 in most every case. > > Note that they could just simply use FD85:19EA:73C8::/47; > it's not like anyone is going to ask them to prove that they > actually random-generated FD85:19EA:73C8::/48 and > FD85:19EA:73C9::/48 (What a coincidence! :) > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
