nanog mailing list archives
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:11:02 +0300
On (2012-07-19 14:29 -0400), valdis.kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
OK? So even if you merge and re-merge, and go on a massive buying spree and accumulate a network where you have to interoperate 1,000 ULAs, you're *still* looking at a literally million-to-one shot. And if you only have a mess of 100 ULAs,
My point was, earlier in this thread 40b random method was suggested, which was deemed non RFC compliant. And I've viewed it superior to strictly RFC. But on later post, another author pointed out that 40b random is in conformance to the RFC. To me 40b random is simpler to implement and does not have either of the risks I described (however unlikely, why should I make implementation in given domain more complex and less strong) -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space, (continued)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Cameron Byrne (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space valdis . kletnieks (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Stephen Sprunk (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Jimmy Hess (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Karl Auer (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Stephen Sprunk (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Mark Andrews (Jul 18)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Saku Ytti (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Stephen Sprunk (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space valdis . kletnieks (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Saku Ytti (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Randy Bush (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Jimmy Hess (Jul 15)
- Re: Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space valdis . kletnieks (Jul 15)