[128122] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Jul 24 23:26:18 2010
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:59:02 +0930
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201007241841.TAA18787@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:41:18 +0100 (BST)
Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> > The RFC provides for two address ranges in fc00::/7, one for random
> > prefixes (fc00::/8), the other reserved for later management (fd00::/8).
>
> Later, in some undefined way. A PI lacking enterprise considering
> doing v6 this way either waits or decides the available space will do
> as someone will fix the managment later. Sixxs demonstrated that some
> will see a need
>
> With low take up of v6 it's early to know what they will see important
>
> > The more important it is to you that your allocation be unique, the
> > more careful you will be to choose a truly random one.
>
> So a way to have really unique is reasonable.
>
> > 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.
>
> People still play the lotteries.
>
And those people, and some others by the looks of it, don't appear to
understand statistics and chance ...
> brandon
>
>
>
>
