> -----Original Message----- > From: james woodyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:11 PM > To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > On Jun 21, 2007, at 17:22, Templin, Fred L wrote > > From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> That assertion has been made, but I don't think we can > treat it as > >> anything more than a preference by non-technical business people. > > > > [...] Some say: "probability of collision must be zero", > and others > > say: "birthday paradox says risk of collision is practically nil". > > Wouldn't ULA-C satisfy both sides? > > One of those two sides is presenting technical criteria for > satisfying unstated and mysterious non-technical goals. Is it too > much to ask for less mystery and more transparency in working group > proceedings?
I couldn't agree more about less mystery and more transparency. The use-case I am most interested in is Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANETs) in which two or more MANETs can merge (e.g., due to mobility). If each MANET used ULA-C's, then they could inject each others' prefixes into their IGPs with no opportunity for collision. If each MANET instead used RFC4193 ULAs, then they could *probably* still inject each others' prefixes. But, however small the risk of collision, RFC4193 ULAs still have one drawback that ULA-C's do not - uncertainty. So perhaps another question is whether it is too much to ask for more certainty (ULA-C) and less mystery (RFC4193 ULA)? Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
