On 19/11/2011 18:47, 夜神 岩男 wrote: >> Oh, and given you've got 64bits to play with, so long as your random >> numbers are up to scratch no need to worry about collisions. You'ld >> need to be assigning millions of addresses before you ran into that >> problem. > > Not to be an ass and this is likely a decade too early, but... this is > direct echoes of what I heard 20 years ago. > > Does systematic thinking belong in /32+ IPv6 addressing or is it in fact > safe to just random it all away willy-nilly?
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox With 64bits of host address space in a typical IPv6 network, you would need to be allocating 6.1 million addresses to have a 1 in a million chance of a collision. You'ld need 5.1 billion addresses for a 1 in 2 chance of a collision. If you get a collision in a typical network of maybe several hundred machines, then suspect your random number generator before anything else. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
