[128095] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Sat Jul 24 15:08:08 2010
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:07:06 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <1279995566.28305.375.camel@karl>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Karl Auer wrote:
> The "random" one allows for swift, bureaucracy-free self-allocation. The
> more important it is to you that your allocation be unique, the more
> careful you will be to choose a truly random one.
If it is that important, you'd prefer a managed solution, not a truly
random one.
> The chance that any
> random prefix will conflict with any chosen prefix is very, very small.
> The chance that two conflicting prefixes would belong to entities that
> will ever actually interact is even smaller. Makes it an interesting
> question as to whether the managed range is really necessary at all.
1) While the chance of conflict is small, it is not non-existent, and
when the interaction does occur and a conflict does arise, there may be
huge costs involved. Random is fine for small deployments. It is a
horrifying prospect for a 500+ subnet network.
2) Managing non-globally routed addressing is easy and doesn't require a
lot of overhead. IANA itself could manage it, as it does all other
globally unique numbers. First come, first serve. Have a nice day. I
enjoy my unique enterprise oid. Why shouldn't I enjoy my own unique
non-globally routed address space identifier? There shouldn't be a need
for justification of the identifier (or services such as whois), so
pawning it off on a RIR seems silly.
Jack
