Subject: RE: site-local observations from the outside

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:11:00 -0700

Jim,

>>> Jim Bound wrote:
>>> If we simply say these NEVER leave the site then
>>> all is fine. Thats the bottom line.

>> Michel Py wrote.
>> I'm ok with that. Not only never leave the site but
>> making >sure that they can't.

> Even better yes. They "can't".

You can't guarantee that for the Hinden/Haberman draft, which is the
reason I will not use it until we have a solution on a PI-like setup.
It's a matter of risk: If I use the Hinden/Haberman draft as private
addresses, and if it ends up being perverted as PI, my entire network
design goes to the trash. If I hijack a random prefix for private
addresses, the risk of collisions although not null is a lot less.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:11:57 +0200

> addresses, the risk of collisions although not null is a lot less.

I am puzzled by your last two sentences. Can you be more precise
about why your design would be trashed and why random hijacking
is less risky than a pseudo-random generator?

   Brian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK