On Jul 10, 2007, at 04:38, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jul 3, 2007, at 13:23, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The only difference is that if there's a registry, the end-users
have someone to sue when a collision happens.
This sounds like yet another reason to hate ULA-C. Seriously.
must be you American (I assume you are) that are so afraid of
someone being sued.I dont see that as a issue at all, we state a
purpose and disclaimer and if someone are stupied enough to sue for
collision, well they are darn stupid then. Sorry the language.
anyway if a collision happen, someone have really screwed up
technical anyway and should be hung out for drying...
I'm sorry. I'm just finding this whole debate rather surreal.
The purpose of ULA-C/G, as near as I can tell, is to mitigate the
risk of an already vanishingly low probability collision-- with the
consequence limited to forcing a network renumbering event, which is
cheaper and easier with IPv6 than it already is with IPv4.
We expect nodes to be cycling through privacy addresses at a regular
rate. We expect them to have more than one address per interface,
and often more than one interface. We've already seen how to manage
the problem of DNS and WHOIS and what-have-you with straight-up RFC
4193 using synthetic records, but that doesn't seem to have attracted
the interest of the ULA-C proponents. Why not?
I'll take this opportunity to repeat myself: If a 1-in-2^40 chance of
having to renumber a ULA network at every network merge event is
totally unacceptable to you, then I have to wonder how you manage the
risks associated with breathing the air in your office building.
And now, I'm seeing people suggest that having an opportunity to
bring *litigation* against the ULA-C registry in the event of
collision is supposed to be a *feature* and not a bug. It makes me
wonder if this is all some sort of elaborate prank. Where's the
hidden camera? Nice one. Very funny ha ha ha. You can come out
now. I'm a good sport. No, really.
--
james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
