Steve, "Steven M. Bellovin" wrote: > Yah. Let's pick a prefix, and tell folks to pick a random number (more > precisely, use an RFC 1750-compatible RNG) to fill out the rest of the > high-order bits to a /48 or a /64. We encourage ISPs to provide real > prefixes to companies that are using application-layer gateways, and > hence don't "need" a routable prefix. We promise two months of > connectivity to folks using non-conflicting random prefixes when they > connect, while they renumber. We think of other, creative solutions > that exploit the fact that we have a really large address space that > we're not going to exhaust. > > In short, that we do *something* that isn't going to cause long-term > architectural and operational pain.
I suggested several years ago that the site-local prefixes could contain more info to help "identify" it. I was told that it had been discussed and was not beneficial enough. Adding an AS # or some other identifier would definitely help clarify the prefixes. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
