On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 16:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 12:17, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > > I would prefer it if the use of semi-unique local scope addresses were
> > > > restricted to non-connected networks. For any connected network you can
> > > > assume that the network manager is able go to some registry website and
> > > > grab a guaranteed unique prefix.
> > >
> > > Ideally, yes. But that doesn't solve all the real world problems - see
> > > the Hain/Templin draft.
> >
> > Which requirement are you referring to?
> >
> > I don't see any requirement for (even slightly) ambiguous addresses,
> > aside from the case where it is, for whatever reason, not possible to
> > quickly acquire a guaranteed unique limited range address from a central
> > registry.
>
> Exactly! In that case, whatever the reason, a pseudo-random value with a
> tiny probability of collision is a fine alternative.
You're a confusing person. First you disagree and then you agree. :)
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
