On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Pekka Nikander wrote: > Michel Py wrote: > >> There is room for both models at the same, and "good enough" is not > >> going to be good enough for everybody. > > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > I would need to see a very compelling case for why two types > > of globally-unique/provider-independent addressing are needed > > before I would like to see two models. > > "Good enough" ones are easy to generate without too much human > intervention, for example, without any connection to the > registry. OTOH, they are not necessarily unique, and therefore > not "good enough" for some people. IMHO, both types are needed. [...]
Whether "completely unique" is required epends on what they're to be used for. Myself, I can't see _any_ reason why anyone would require complete uniqueness (except for being able to globally route them, which is a problem I don't think we should be pursuing here). "Nearly enough uniqueness" with about 38 bits is more than enough. Even with the birthday paradox, where all the networks would be interconnected, about hundreds of thousands of sites would have to all-interconnected, thousands with a very good probability of uniqueness. But sure, e.g. reserving fee::/12 (pun intended :-), fef::/12 reserved) manual assignments would be ok, but I think people would just not use them at all, or use them for entirely wrong purposes -- which is why registering them should not be free. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
