Geoff Huston wrote: > At 06:30 PM 6/08/2003 +1000, Aidan Williams wrote: > > I can't see significant differences in process between globally > > unique local address allocation and a globally unique PI address > > allocation. > > I'd offer the view that there's a lot of difference. >
OK, I can see how registries could have problems implementing centrally assigned random allocation as described in the draft. Is non-aggregable to registries and random selection inside those blocks a feasible alternative?
A further comment: your document speaks positively of a rental service model for local addresses with non-payment causing the block to return to a pool. With a local address block, can that be made to stick? Having received an address allocation, where is the incentive to keep paying? Why not just default and keep using your "allocated" address.. Given the random selection process, reuse is unlikely and given that the address is local, noticable breakage is unlikely too.
- aidan
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
