[154974] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Wed Jul 18 03:04:55 2012
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:04:05 +0300
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5005E87D.6060006@unfix.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On (2012-07-18 00:34 +0200), Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > Here's a calculator that will generate a random one for you:
>
> does not follow RFC4193 in any way at all. A such do not use it.
Another silly oneliner, not RFC4193.
ruby -e'p ("fd"+rand(2**40).to_s(16)).scan(/.{1,4}/).join(":")+"::/48"'
I'm not sure if RFC4193 is best way to generate random part, it should be
possible to incorporate RFC2777 verifiability to it. It would allow
operators to prove people who got memorable addresses were not favoured and
it would allow the people who generated them to prove they used accepted
methods to generate them.
However I'm not sure what would be good seed? ISO3166 alpha2 +
domestic_business_id + 0..n (for nth block you needed)
In practice I'm sure we'll notice bias in random numbers towards 0. As many
people who've not been through painful enough M&A renumbers will opt for
memorable addresses.
--
++ytti
