Benny Amorsen wrote: > > On 2003-06-08 at 20:13, Robert Elz wrote: > > > Unless we can demonstrate that they are, and must be, unique (to work, or > > be useful) we really have to make it very very plain that they are not > > unique. > > This is one of the reasons I proposed having registries that do /not/ > pick addresses. If there are several places where an address can be > registered, it should be painfully obvious to everyone that conflicts > will happen. Nobody can claim to be unaware.
That's also why I personally would be happy with pseudo-random probably-unique prefixes, but Bob's idea of a 10 Euro registry for unique pseudo-random numbers is aimed at people who want a bit more assurance. In all cases, your mileage may vary. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
