At 03:33 PM 6/27/2002 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote: >Keith, > >Keith Moore wrote: > > > > if you have enough bits for the site-id you can make the probability > > of a conflict approach zero *provided* the site bits are randomly > > chosen. but the easiest way to avoid conflicts is to make the > > site-id globally unique, and there's no good reason to not do so. > >Who delegates the globally-unique site-ids? If the site-ids are >globally unique, how are they any different from global addresses?
Exactly. Perhaps I'm over-abstracting...but it seems to me like a globally-unique site-id is just another form of a global address. I think there are lots of reasons not to make these site-ids globally unique, if we choose to adopt them. For instance, how does an ad hoc, disconnected network get a site-id? Maybe it doesn't need one. What about my home? Do I have to go to my ISP or ICANN to get a site-local ID for my home? - Ralph >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] >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
