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

Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Fred and Alain,

I am simply not as scared of unregistered prefixes as Alain, because
I believe there will always be rogue prefixes. At least you can
tell these are rogues simply by looking at the prefix, unlike the case
of rogues that are stolen PA prefixes. So I don't accept the thesis
that they need registering. Also, registration is not free of cost,
so it won't be free of charge, so I don't see the advantage
of post facto registration.

Anyway, let's see what Bob and Geoff propose.


> How about this - what if we let individual users randomly self
> generate an address which they then take to the registration
> authority. If no one else has previously registered the address,
> the registration authority grants the assignment and records
> it in the registration database. If the address was already taken,
> the user repeats the random self generation process and asks
> again to have the registration recorded. The process should
> converge after relatively few iterations given a reasonable
> random self-generation scheme - especially if the pool of
> addresses is large.
> Any thoughts on this idea?
> Fred
> osprey67@yahoo.com
> Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM> wrote:
>        I think that if you were to drop entirely the randomly self generated 
>        addresses
>        and do not say anything about the fee scruture except it has to
>        be low cost, it would be a much more swallable pill.
>        - Alain.
>        Bob Hinden wrote:
>        > Geoff,
>        >
>        >> After thinking about this and looking at the evident need to make 
>        >> some progress
>        >> here I'd like to believe that this level of resolution of potential 
>        >> ambiguity
>        >> is adequate, given that there is always the option to use a central 
>        >> registry draw to
>        >> obtain a global id that is assuredly unique.
>        >>
>        >> My other issues with the current rev of the draft are still on the 
>        >> table, and of course
>        >> I'd be happy to work with the authors to come up with some revised 
>        >> words that may find
>        >> some reasonable (rough) wg consensus, and still remain within the 
>        >> overall spirit
>        >> and intent of this proposal.
>        >
>        >
>        > Thanks. That would be very helpful. I will contact you off list and 
>        > see if we can get together to come with some wording that could be 
>        > presented to the w.g. during the Thursday session.
>        >
>        > Bob

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6