[131173] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ? Unique local addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Thu Oct 21 01:17:14 2010
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:47:02 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <20101021044440.GI3573@skywalker.creative.net.au>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.
