[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing
Brian Carptener writes:
> > attempts to to refine this draft into some considerations from a registry
> > perspective. (If there's interest
> > I'll put this out as an Internet Draft)
>Three comments on your draft:
Thank you for reviewing the document
>1. I don't think the RIRs as institutions have any special standing
>to comment on the locally-assigned variant in draft-hinden. It's a
>technical choice for the WG and the IETF. If you're arguing personally
>that you don't like the birthday paradox risk, let's discuss it.
It is an individual document, as stated by listing only myself as the author.
It is not an RIR document, and it does not represent any RIR position.
As an individual IETF participant I have as much standing to comment
on the locally assigned random choice proposal as any other
The probability of a collision using random choice is not a paradox. Its
a simple calculation, using the formula as given in the document.
The observation is that even though the /8 space contains
1.1 trillion entries, there is a greater than 0.5 probability that there will
be a clash after some 1.2 million draws. Normally this would not matter in the
slightest, BUT the proposal also notes a potential to use these addresses
in the context of end point identifiers, and in such a case there is
a strict requirement for uniqueness, and my observation is that self-driven
random choice is inadequate. Its not a paradox risk. Its just the underlying
mathematics of random draw probabilities.
>2. Most of your arguments appear to be hinting at a re-run of the ICANN
>wars for the centrally assigned variant. Well, that's why there is an
>analogy with .org in the draft. You may be right that the pricing level
>should be set competitively, but I really don't see this being a gold
>rush. There's not much marketing value in a random number. In any case,
>you're correct that the IETF can't decide this, but we need to give IANA
>the clearest instructions possible.
I honestly can't make any sense of these sentences. Could you please
>Incidentally, since these are not routeable addresses, and have no
>geography, it doesn't follow that the RIRs have a role in this part
>of the address space. In fact, the RIRs might be quite uncomfortable
>with the idea of competing in the sale of random numbers.
It may be. It may not. But attempting to second guess anyone, as
you appear to be doing in your comment, without at least
allowing them the courtesy of consideration of the issues is not normally
considered a very wise course of action. So this document is
considering the issues and looking at the pros and cons of various
forms of distribution, and looking at an RIR perspective in
considering the implications of a central registry function of
such local use allocations. You'd prefer that this analysis was
done behind closed doors? I'd be tempted to guess that your
answer would be a 'no', but I'll avoid the temptation to second
guess you and leave it for you to answer.
>3. I feel strongly that this absolutely needs to be a one-time fee.
>The idea of constructing an artificial service industry to maintain
>an annual registration system for random numbers is plain wasteful.
And the document considers this approach as well as others. Interestingly
enough there are other perspectives here to the one you've stated, and
there are pros and cons to each of them, and the document explores
some aspects of these considerations. You appear to offer the hint
here that its in some manner heretical behaviour to explore alternatives.
Again I'm tempted to guess that you do not mean it to sound that way,
but once more I'll refrain :-)
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 email@example.com