On 2007-05-11 16:14, Fred Baker wrote:
...
One technical question I would ask. What does a "Central Authority" and
"IANA Assignment" have to do with a "Local" address of any type? It
seems in context that the major issue is an address prefix that is not
advertised to neighboring ISPs and can be generally configured to be
refused if offered by a neighboring ISP, in the same way that an RFC
1918 address is not advertised and is generally refused between IPv4
networks. In any draft on this topic, regardless of where it is
discussed, if central assignment is in view, the reason for having such
assignment should be clearly stated.
Fred, the point is that ULAs should be unambiguous, so that if they
happen to meet (e.g. via a VPN, or following a merge of two previously
separate networks) there is no collision. Currently ULAs include
a pseudo-random prefix, which leaves open a theoretical possibility
of collision. Centrally-allocated ULAs would not have this issue.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf