On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >FEC0::/10 has about 38 usable bits there. That's enough for "unique > >enough". No need for even that. Let's assume /16 - /40 -- 24 bits would > >be enough too. By birthday paradox, even in that case, collisions should > >only be probable if you communicate thousands of different sites > >simultaneously and there are referrals and third party interconnections. > > I don't think that you can, or should put the new globally-unique, > provider independent address space inside the FECO::/10 allocation. > As far as I know, we still plan to allow the FECO::/10 prefix to be > used for disconnected sites, and perhaps other "moderate" usage.
Oh? I am not sure about goals what we're actually trying to solve. IMO, putting some randomness in the fec0::/10 solves nearly all, or all, the problems with current _site-local_ addresses. (I'm not sure because the requirements list doesn't exist yet :-). Naturally, people will want to have truly globally unique, routable, provider-independent, etc. addresses. But there is no free lunch. Have we been through this road yet? Yes, I believe so, with no apparent success. Let's define our scope better than that and leave the latter for e.g. multi6 to consider (e.g. geographically automatically allocated PI space). -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
