On Mon., 2 Sep. 2019, 17:58 Robert Raszuk, <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote:
> Hi Mark, > > >> The uSID proposal is taking the position that all the bits after the high >> order prefix are available for any purpose. This is not correct, and would >> violate a number of standards track RFCs, including the IPv6 Addressing >> Architecture RFC (RFC 4291) and the ULA RFC (RFC 4193). >> >> In particular, 40 bits of a ULA prefix, between /8 and /48, the Gobal ID, >> must be pseudo random. This is the most critical property of ULA addresses >> and prefixes, as it is the solution to the problem ULAs are designed to >> solve. >> > > RFC 4193 says about Global_ID allocation: > > The local assignments are self-generated and do not need any central > coordination or assignment, but have an extremely high probability of > being unique. > > Are uSID values going to be entirely pseudo-random? " 3.2.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193#section-3.2.1>. Locally Assigned Global IDs Locally assigned Global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random algorithm consistent with [RANDOM <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193#ref-RANDOM>]." > So in some the case operator may choose to make such "local assignment" of > Global ID to be per router not per network. And that is all what is needed > for uSID. uSID address blocks does not need to be continues. > > It also does not contradict with any RFC does it ? What breaks if I use > more then one self generated Global ID in my network ? > > Note that the above question goes way beyond any SR related discussion so > perhaps deserves a separate 6man thread. > > Best, > R. > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
