Hi,
> It is expected that network administrators of larger organizations,
> or those with business practice or governmental requirements to avoid
> conflict in future mergers or acquisitions will prefer central
> allocations,
I don't expect that at all. Why make such an assumption, and the
subsequent recommendation, rather than just state the choice in neutral
terms? IMHO this whole paragraph needs to be rewritten in a neutral style.
Something like:
As quantified in Section 3.2.3 of [ULA], there is a very small but
non-zero probability of two Locally Assigned ULA prefixes being equal.
Network administrators who are concerned by this may prefer central
allocations. In particular, network administrations which are planning
to use Local IPv6 address prefixes for extensive inter-site communication
over a long period of time could use a Centrally Allocated prefix, as
there is then mathematically no possibility of allocation conflicts when
interconnecting or merging networks. Individual administrations are free
to choose either approach, and in fact could choose both, with a Centrally
Allocated prefix for their production networks while using locally assigned
prefixes in their experimental or lab networks.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
