some corrections / comments
1 Locally assined ULAs are not unique - the use of the term
"probabilistic uniqueness" is meaningless. What is closer to the mark is
the observation that in most context of overlapping use that involve
only a subset of locally assigned UALS the probability of collis
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 15:28 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2007-11-12 22:15, Per Heldal wrote:
> > Regardless of the listed arguments one may also question IETFs role in
> > the definition of (any) ULA as there is no technical reason why such an
> > address-block must be tagged 'special'.
>
Per,
On 2007-11-12 22:15, Per Heldal wrote:
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 22:46 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
FYI --
I wrote this draft to try to capture the major arguments for and
against the definition of ULA-Cs. Please let me know if I've gotten
anything wrong, or if there are any major ar
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 22:46 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> FYI --
>
> I wrote this draft to try to capture the major arguments for and
> against the definition of ULA-Cs. Please let me know if I've gotten
> anything wrong, or if there are any major arguments (in either
> direction) that
FYI --
I wrote this draft to try to capture the major arguments for and
against the definition of ULA-Cs. Please let me know if I've gotten
anything wrong, or if there are any major arguments (in either
direction) that I've missed.
Thanks,
Margaret
Begin forwarded message:
From: IET
