[86661] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IAB and "private" numbering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Geoff Huston)
Sun Nov 13 12:48:56 2005
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:45:01 +1100
To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
nanog@nanog.org
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0511121736330.20032@marvin.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't
>seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
So you how would interpret the combination of RFC4913 and the statistical
analysis known as "the birthday problem"? I offer the interpretation of
this as use of address space in a limited context that has a likelihood of
collision at the prefix level with some other similar, but unrelated, use.
I would characterize a more exact equivalent of RFC 1918 space in an IPv6
context as use of address space in a limited context that has a certainty
of collision at the prefix level with some other similar, but unrelated, use.
It would appear that we are already well advanced down a path of
reproducing many of the aspects of IPv4 address architecture in IPv6, to
the point of producing analogies of RFC1918 private address space. It also
seems to me that this entire thread is constructed upon a somewhat dubious
initial premise, but then again that's not exactly uncommon is it? :-)
Geoff
