Keith, > actually I'm fairly convinced that "nearly unique" would be good enough > as long as we could convince people to actually assign random site > prefixes instead of just choosing one (like all zeros or whatever). > > and they seem to have the "right" property regarding routability - > the chance of collisions is so low that you can hook them up with > a large number of other networks via private arrangement without > fear of collision, but high enough that there's a clear incentive > for ISPs to filter these things from routing advertisements.
what is your position on probably unique local addresses versus site-locals? as probably unique addresses have a limited topological span wouldn't applications still have pretty much the same issues as with site-locals? /ot -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
