> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 11:59 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: james woodyatt; IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > > > > > So perhaps another question is whether it is too much to ask > > for more certainty (ULA-C) and less mystery (RFC4193 ULA)? > > So, you reckon the chance of an administrative error in ULA-C > land giving two users the same prefix is less than the > 2^-40 chance of a ULA clash between two users?
Maybe; maybe not. But, with ULA-C, there is a (trusted?) entity that is accountable for assuring uniqueness and someone to turn to in the event of ties. There is also the concept of having sites self-generate the ULA-Cs and "register" them with a 3rd party entity, which puts the control in the end user's hands while still having an accountable 3rd party. BTW, this business of birthday paradox clashes has been beaten on wrt to other random address assignment paradigms too; in particular, CGAs. There, you have ~60 (?) bits for uniqueness but it has still been implied that any non-zero probability of collision is too great. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
