> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The *only* possible argument for centrally allocated ULAs is for those > who believe that the birthday paradox in a 2^40 address space causes > a real danger of colliding with another business partner's ULA prefix. > As I've said, we can easily have a robot to take care of that > (in fact, > the prototype is up and running, thanks Jeroen). Here is a quote from an expirted I-D: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01 The major difference between the locally assigned Unique local addresses defined in [ULA] and the centrally assigned local addresses defined in this document is that they are uniquely assigned and the assignments can be escrowed to resolve any disputes regarding duplicate assignments. It is expected that large managed sites will prefer central assignments and small or disconnected sites will prefer local assignments. It is recommended that sites planning to use Local IPv6 addresses for extensive inter-site communication, initially or as a future possibility, use a centrally assigned prefix as there is no possibility of assignment conflicts. Sites are free to choose either approach The second paragraph is what I'd be most interested in. Not for the reason cited, but because if I want to configure multiple "sites" exactly the same, that would seem to be the most direct approach. I suppose I could also do the standard ULA for one site, then copy those addresses in the others. Isn't that exactly the same as centrally administered ULAs? Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
