On Jul 10, 2007, at 10:56, Paul Vixie wrote:
[I wrote:]
The purpose of ULA-C/G, as near as I can tell, is to mitigate the
risk of
an already vanishingly low probability collision-- ...
nope.
Hmmm. I guess the alternative is that the purpose of ULA-C/G is to
mitigate the risk of collision when merging on the order of hundreds
of thousands of ULA networks in one routing realm... sort of like
creating a "local DFZ" of a sort.
Forgive me, but that sounds even more surreal. It's tough for me to
imagine how a real organization doing that could fail to qualify for
a PI allocation, or why such an organization would find it
unacceptable to have to use a PI allocation without advertising it to
the public DFZ. Likewise, it's tough to imagine how an organization
that doesn't qualify for a PI allocation could be merging enough ULA
networks together that the risk of collision rises to a level of any
real significance.
Okay. Maybe the problem with PI allocations for this purpose is that
organizations doing all this network merging, i.e. extraordinarily
paranoid organizations, e.g. the Communist Party, want some kind of
assurance from the operators of the public Internet that their
hundreds of thousands of local networks aren't directly reachable
from the public DFZ in the event a local NOC configures a border
router improperly. Obviously, ULA-C can do that better than PI.
Is that the big driving factor here?
--
james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
