Pekka, > Pekka Savola wrote: > That's because those addresses are meant to be unique > _only_ within a scope. Addresses leak, yes, but that > doesn't hurt when the probably of collision then is > suitably low (e.g. below 0.1%).
Go tell that to the network administrator that "wins". Only two ways out: renumber or NAT. Both a pain. Network administrators don't take chances with a 1 in 1000 odd. > If the addresses are _unnecessarily_ unique, they will be > used for wrong purposes, no matter what. Your proposal is good enough for people to use them from wrong purposes too. What you are talking about is the very principle of ambiguity: ambiguity (vs. unique) guarantees that the addresses will not be routed globally. > IMO we will not want to have site-locals be too attractive: > we don't want to have (too big) competition to global-scope > addresses. IMO we want _IPv6_ users to use _globals_, and > (some) site-locals only when they more or less have to. Agreed. > Globally unique PI addresses are a step in entirely wrong > direction. If they are not aggregatable. > As you see, these are not really all that "technical" > reasons, but I don't want to see the world where people > are using IPv6 with similar walled-gardens as NAT's > create today. Agreed. > (and besides, with "nearly unique" there's no need for > any infrastructure to support them.) A server to implement a counter is not "infrastructure", which is why Charlie offered to provide the service for free. > Note: I'm not disputing the (possible) usefulness of > globally unique PI for e.g. multihoming etc. purposes, > but those are _global scope_ addresses, and that's not > the point here. Agreed. Here's the deal: any mechanism that makes site-locals less ambiguous is a danger to bad usage. Mechanisms that are ambiguous enough not to be a danger are worthless as they don't solve the ambiguity issue. Mechanisms that are good enough to solve the ambiguity issue (including yours) are a danger no matter what the risk of collision is. If you increase the collision risk to the point that people would not be tempted to route globally, at the same time you miss the goal which is to resolve ambiguity. The goal is to eliminate ambiguity. Focus on what to do in order to reduce the risk of bad use, no try to knob the level of ambiguity. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
