nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ? Unique local addresses


From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:47:02 +1030

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:44:40 +0800
Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:

I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get 
caught out by collisions.

The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch 
someone out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess.

You assume that people simply select ULA prefixes randomly and don't
start doing linear allocations from the beginning of the ULA range.



Any time there is a parameter that can be configured, there is a
possibility that people will misconfigure it. The only way to
completely prevent that being a possibility is to eliminate the
parameter. We can prevent people from getting addressing wrong by not
putting addresses in the IP header - but I, and I suspect most people,
would prefer their computers not to be a dumb terminal connected to a
mainframe. Or we can make the network robust against misconfiguration,
and put in place things like BCP38.

This is all starting to sound a bit like Chicken Little.

Regards,
Mark.


Current thread: