Brian, >> Michel Py wrote: >> It's a matter of risk: If I use the >> Hinden/Haberman draft as private addresses, and if it ends up >> being perverted as PI, my entire network design goes to the >> trash. If I hijack a random prefix for private addresses, the >> risk of collisions although not null is a lot less.
> Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I am puzzled by your last two sentences. Can you be more > precise about why your design would be trashed Because then the addresses used on the private network would be routable PI, which is exactly what network designers don't want when they design a private network with private addresses. >From another post: > If by PI you mean *globally routeable* PI, I am not holding > my breath, and I believe it would be a serious mistake to > delay any decisions while waiting for PI. > If you mean non-globally-routeable PI, Hinden/Haberman is a > fine solution. What you refuse to acknowledge is that there is a high probability that the Hinden/Haberman draft will be misused as globally routable PI. As so, it can't be used for private addresses. I'm not the only one that says this. Network administrators don't buy that addresses in the Hinden/Haberman draft will remain non-routable because they will be the first jumping in the train to make them routable in the first place. > and why random hijacking is less risky than a > pseudo-random generator? It's not; it has everything to do with the purpose of the prefix, not with the way the address was picked. The risk of collision for an address that does not get out of the site is a lot less (specifically, a merge) than for an address that reaches the outside. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
