[154985] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jul 18 12:17:31 2012
In-Reply-To: <20120718134800.GA11320@pob.ytti.fi>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:10:52 -0500
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
> On (2012-07-18 08:37 -0500), Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>=20
>>> it should bepossible to incorporate RFC2777 verifiability to it.
>>=20
>> There is no need for that, since your failure to use a good source of
>> randomness hurts nobody except yourself.
>=20
> I think you're making fact out of opinion. Maybe SP is generating ULAs for=
> their customers. Maybe they'd like to be able to prove in case of dispute
> that other customer with memorable ULA was not favoured.
> Maybe someone claims I'm not using BCP methods for ULA selection, and I'd
> like to be able to falsify those claims.
>=20
SP should never do that. SP should provide GUA. ULA should be local to the c=
ustomer and not used between customers unless the customers specifically agr=
ee to do so. In that case, the customers can handle the coordination and the=
re is no need for the SP to be involved in any dispute.
Owen
