> as the ietf does not allocate address space, probably not around
> here. you
But the IETF does reccomend assignment policies and rules, right? such as
RFC 2374?
> might try places where addresses are allocated, i.e. the
> registries. there
> is 'active discussion' going on over in the regist
Tony,
Thanks for explaining this to me.
> While routing table growth is still a
> very real concern, we have collectively recognized that some of the
> earlier assumptions about policy enforcement were invalid, so there are
> new draft- series documents to update and bring the RFC series inline
Tony,
> De: Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> The TLA/NLA rules are obsolete, as the RIRs are managing the space
> without the TLA/NLA designations. See
> draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt as a replacement for RFC 2374.
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt quotes RFC 2374 in
section
RFC 1887 states:
"4.3.2 Indirect Providers (Backbones)
There does not at present appear to be a strong case for direct
providers to take their address spaces from the the IPv6 space of an
indirect provider (e.g., backbone). The benefit in routing data
abstraction is relatively smal
> -Mensaje original-
> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>> => the probability argument gives no guarantee.
>
>Nothing can give you full guarantees
>
> => globally unique IIDs give a full guarantee as I explained
> in a pre
> -Mensaje original-
> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Enviado el: viernes, 08 de febrero de 2002 18:29
> Para: marcelo bagnulo
> CC: Alexandru Petrescu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Asunto: Re: Randomness and uniqueness
>
>
> In your previous
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Francis Dupont
Enviado el: jueves, 07 de febrero de 2002 22:41
Para: Alexandru Petrescu
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: Randomness and uniqueness
> => if this argument is used in order to avoid (or to perf
