|
Hi,
While admiring the detailed work on commenting the
various aspects of the Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses draft, I would like
to focus my comments to two technical issues of the commentary.
1. Section 3 and the issue of the birthday paradox
is misleading.
As I have written in a response to the group some
time ago, the birthday paradox is not an issue here.
It would be an issue had all organizations in the
world merged into one global organization, after each had drawn his
own random number.
In this case, there is a probability of over 0.5
that after 1.24 million organizations merging in, there is a
collision.
This, obviously, is not the case.
Yes, there is a probability of 0.5 that among any
given 1.24 million organizations there is a collision, but those organizations
are not going to merge together!
Within any TWO organizations actually merging,
the probability of collision remains 2^-40, which is, I believe, low
enough.
It is true that in the global routing table, two
leaking local-scope addresses may collide, presumably making it harder to trace
the source.
However, since those addresses are internally
generated in the first place, this problem exists anyway.
2. On restating the requirements for local
addresses
Personally, I was very impressed from Margaret
Wasserman's work in draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.
It details a list of important scenarios which
have to be considered when devising a local-scope addressing
scheme.
It is my suggestion, if the commentary draft is
expected to have a follow-up version, to add a mapping of the proposed solutions
into the problem space presented in Margaret's draft, and see to what extent
they match up. I would be glad to offer assistance with this
respect.
I think we should keep important and thorough works
like those, and learn from them.
Regards,
|
