On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:44:40 +0800 Adrian Chadd <adr...@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.
