Thus spake "Roger Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jul 3, 2007, at 13:23, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The only difference is that if there's a registry, the end-users
have someone to sue when a collision happens.
This sounds like yet another reason to hate ULA-C. Seriously.
must be you American (I assume you are) that are so afraid of
someone being sued. I dont see that as a issue at all,
You've apparently never been sued in an American court. The central
authority will go bankrupt defending themselves, win or lose.
we state a purpose and disclaimer and if someone are
stupied enough to sue for collision, well they are darn stupid
then.
That won't work. The claimed reason that ULA-L isn't good enough and that
enterprises need ULA-C is because ULA-L provides no guarantee there'll never
be a collision. However, the odds of collision are higher with ULA-C. That
means these folks aren't interested in the odds of collision -- they're
looking for someone to guarantee in writing that it won't happen. Slap a
disclaimer on it and they might as well just use ULA-L.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
