On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 09:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Steven Blake wrote:
> > 2. I don't find the argument for a single allocation authority
> > compelling. It is still possible for a single authority (i.e.,
> > IANA) to delegate blocks of the global ID space to multiple
> > regis
Steven Blake wrote:
>
> I have some comments about Section 3.2.1 (Centrally Assigned Global IDs)
>
> 1. I don't understand the necessity for the requirement to generate IDs
> consistent with [RANDOM]. The IDs need to be unique and
> sufficiently "randomized" (one could argue how importa
Steven Blake wrote:
>don't think it is necessary to be unable to guess the date or
>relative order in which a particular ID was allocated, however.
Someone will have a reason to want such unguessability. That is
sufficient. This is one of those cases where making it work in 100%
of cases
I have some comments about Section 3.2.1 (Centrally Assigned Global IDs)
1. I don't understand the necessity for the requirement to generate IDs
consistent with [RANDOM]. The IDs need to be unique and
sufficiently "randomized" (one could argue how important this need
really is) so
At 07:09 AM 9/24/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Author(s)
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman
Filename
