> I couldn't agree more about less mystery and more transparency. > The use-case I am most interested in is Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks > (MANETs) in which two or more MANETs can merge (e.g., due to > mobility). If each MANET used ULA-C's, then they could inject > each others' prefixes into their IGPs with no opportunity for > collision. If each MANET instead used RFC4193 ULAs, then they > could *probably* still inject each others' prefixes. But, > however small the risk of collision, RFC4193 ULAs still have > one drawback that ULA-C's do not - uncertainty.
Certainty in the abstract does not equate to certainty in the real world. > So perhaps another question is whether it is too much to ask > for more certainty (ULA-C) and less mystery (RFC4193 ULA)? Personally, I am less certain about the probability of ULA-Cs being administered such that a collision will never happen than I am about the unlikelyhood of a collision between randomly assigned ULAs. -- George Mitchell > Fred > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
