Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> > This would work, and would be acceptiable to most people if there was
> > a simple rule that worked, and would continue to work as the network
> > grows.
> > My concern is that an 'approximately unique' local address could at
> > some point become less than unique and could cause routing problems
> > when the address is eventually assigned. I mean, how many companies
> > would use this 'approximately unique' local address option and thus
> > "claim" portions of the network, while the registreies are assigning
> > addresses? Eventually there will be legimate asigned users to some of
> > these 'approximately unique' local addresses and this will cause
> > problems later.
>
> You can get verifiably unique addresses if you go through the
> registration procedure. So, if you follow the good housekeeping rules,
> you should never encounter the bug you mention.
Though I'd also ask: "Claim portions of WHAT network?" I'm talking about
*local* addresses, which by definition and design are not valid for use on
the global internet (and those nice little filters we want to mandate help
discourage people from trying).
Sure, you can claim large tracts of local space, for all the good that does
you ("I declare that this 60% of this sandbox is now MINE."), but the
approximately unique property is primarily designed to make it much eaiser
to merge local networks. So you only need to be piecewise unique with
people with whom you might want to create a local VPN.
--
Andrew White
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
