Hello Michel,
Michel Py wrote:
>> Charlie Perkins wrote:
>> I don't think a fee is required at all.
......
>> This would solve the uniqueness problem, but all the other
>> problems would remain. It seems to me that this also eliminates
>> a requirement for "statistically unique" addresses for site-local.
>
> If the addresses were allocated randomly or with a hash I would agree
> with you. However, what I proposed was addresses allocated
> geographically, along the lines of being used as identifiers for a
> dual-space multihoming solution, and this will require some work from
> the RIRs (maintenance/monitoring of areas) thus the fee.
My proposal is that we allocated them linearly -- starting at
1,000,000 or so and incrementing by one after each allocation.
That's easy and effective. If you want something more structured,
then that's solving a different problem and should be considered
separately. One problem at a time, please!
Whatever the freebie allocation algorithm is, it has to be
simple enough to be free. If it costs even $0.01, then that
means paperwork for the consumer probably including even
an invoice and managerial approval.
Regards,
Charlie P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
