On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 12:39:36PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: > Is this just another form of a registry?
Yes. However, I think that it's more likely to succeed than our previous registry ideas because the addresses come from the aggregated, global unicast address space. Thus, there can be no arguments about who owns what addresses. If I buy a prefix from Earthlink, it comes from Earthlink's address block. Outsiders can't even tell it's not a normal prefix (which is a blessing and a curse), let alone state that they also purchased the prefix from some other ISP. > Also, a lot of the motivation for > this type of addresses was to get addresses that are provider > independent. While they are not intended to be routable, the seem provider > oriented to me. It's true that they're not completely provider independent. On the other hand, once you have purchase the prefix, you don't need to associate with the ISP again (assuming they don't have recurring fees). Naturally, you'll want a legal contract that says the ISP can't revoke the allocation, etc. You're free to use the prefix in any way you want, which matches the spirit of provider-independent, non-routable addresses. In particular, the ISP you buy these addresses from probably isn't your carrier. > Also, it doesn't by itself, meet the need of people who want to be able to > create a prefix locally. That's true. I'm not trying to solve that problem since there are other reasonable solutions in the works for that problem. My solution is more appropriate for managed networks who really want completely unique addresses. Best Regards, -jj -- Hacker is to software engineer as Climbing Mt. Everest is to building a Denny's there. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
