Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

[Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>]

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