Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 05/08/2012 07:58, Ray Hunter wrote:
I disagree. The context of my message is that there should be some
identifier that can disambiguate the namespace per Homenet.
That's what I meant too. The only point is to avoid ambiguity in the
namespace. The only reason for using a ULA prefix to create a unique
identifier string is to avoid the bother of inventing a new method of
creating a unique identifier string. The name has no relation to
addressing or routing whatever. If you prefer some other way of creating
a string with a very high probability of uniqueness, that's fine.
So I think I understand the point of a ULA like suffix. However, that doesn't
translate into a name that anybody would use. Locally, you could just have it
as part of the DNS search list, I suppose, but that's limited to resources
that are accessed locally which .local more or less works now. So it seems a
small gain with some ugliness to boot.
What I really want though is to have resources that I can access regardless of
where I am though. I don't see how this is of any help at all for that problem.
The only thing I see is that either I make the name globally accessible -- in
which
case I'd use a real DNS name, or to make myself topologically part of the
.local[site]
namespace. Isn't that what this all boils down to? TANSTAAFL?
Mike
PS: the 40 bits of a ULA was constrained by v6 prefix length. if we were to do
this
for sitelocal, we'd probably want to add some bits to better cope with the
birthday paradox.
iirc, 64 bits is a lot safer.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
