[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Draft on Globally Unique IPv6 Local Unicast Addresses

    Date:        Mon, 26 May 2003 16:07:25 +0200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
    Message-ID:  <3ED21F9D.BC0A3162@hursley.ibm.com>

  | > > it. But in fact, if I get my copy of "181:8008:7134" from a registry that
  | > > promises never to give anyone else a copy of it, then it's easy to decide
  | > > who wins if I ever encounter a clash with another copy of
  | > > "181:8008:7134".

I should have asked this when you first said that, but how?

You (quite correctly) said "a registry".   If you go spend your 10 Euros
on the number from one registry, and I go spend my 10 Euros from another
registry, and they both issue us the same number, who wins, and why?

How/why is one registry to be preferred over another?   By what legal
fiction would one organisation's right to sell numbers for money be
able to be judged better than anothers?

Note that this is quite different from "routable" numbers, where what
is really being obtained (sold, leased, loaned, whatever) is the right
to have the number installed in one particular instance of the global
routing table - with most people preferring the one that everyone else
is also using (which does nothing to prevent someone else selling the
same right wrt some other routing table - that's just not likely to get
very many customers).

The same is true of domain names, where what is really being "sold" isn't
the name, but the slot in the DNS zone file.

But with numbers that are just numbers and no more than that?


IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com