Subject: RE: globally unique site local addresses

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:08:18 -0800

Jari,

> Jari Arkko wrote:
> The question is: if you need perfectly unique addresses,
> why can't you use normal, global addresses? There we
> already have an existing registration process and
> standards.

Pardon me? There is no such thing for end-sites as of today.

> My thinking is that global addresses + statistically
> unique site-locals would cover most of the need we have,
> and it does not pay to construct complexity for the small
> amount of folks who would need perfect uniqueness.

Since truly unique would have a fee, the people that pay the fee will
finance the development effort. From an enterprise standpoint, $50 a
year is not significant if it buys the *guarantee* that the address is
unique. The truly unique feature is like insurance.

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: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:02:39 +0200

Michel,

Michel Py wrote:
> I think that the split space is better, for the following reason: truly
> unique is a paid feature. People that pay for the feature will want a
> guarantee that they will get what they paid for, which is truly unique,
> which means the only model that works is split space.

> unique. The truly unique feature is like insurance.

Let me try to understand why exactly some people would be
willing to pay a fee for "truly" uniqueness.  I'm probably
missing some issues here; your input is valued.

First of all, there is no such thing as an absolute guarantee
for global uniqueness.  Misconfigurations happen.  Thus, the
real difference between the "split space" and "mixed space" model
is that in the split space model, *nobody* is *supposed* to
configure or use a registered prefix, while in the mixed space
model someone *may* legitimitely use it.  However, even in the
mixed space model the party having preformed the registration has
some kind of ownership/moral property rights over the prefix,
giving them more rights over those that haven't registered
the prefix but happen to be using it anyway.

Thus, whatever you pay, you don't have any absolute guarantee
that nobody else is using your prefix.  What you have is some kind
of right over the prefix, the right having been aquired by
registering and paying.

Now, the case seems to depend on psychology and the formulation
of rights.  In the split space case the rights are easier to formulate,
more natural, and stronger in that sense.  Nobody is supposed to
use your prefix, and therefore they are wrong if they use your prefix,
and you can sue them (or, in Europe, you can dispise and ignore them :-)

As far as I understand, it would be possible to come fairly close
to that even in the mixed space model.  If you have registered a
prefix, nobody else can register the same prefix, and if you ever see
someone using you prefix, they are wrong by letting the prefix to
leak, and you can sue them (or at least dispise and ignore them :-)

So, to me, it looks like the only thing "truly" uniqueness buys
is that if your prefix is ever leaked by someone else but you,
you may have better chances to shut them down, since you can morally
require them to change their prefix.  The cost of tracking down
the party leaking the prefix seems to be the same.

In both cases registration buys you the assurance that you do not
need to renumber you prefix, ever.

--Pekka Nikander

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 07:50:43 -0800

Hello Michel,

> unique. The truly unique feature is like insurance.

I don't think a fee is required at all.  The amount of storage and
processor time that a freebie allocation site would require is
so small, I'm sure many people, including me, would be
willing to host such a website for free.  I suggested before
that there should be a web page under www.iana.org for
people to get addresses, rate limited and so on.  This is
not a "registration", because nobody has to care about who
actually got the address, and no services are to be offered.

This would solve the uniqueness problem, but all the other
problems would remain.  It seems to me that this also eliminates
a requirement for "statistically unique" addresses for site-local.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:37:00 +0200 (EET)

> actually got the address, and no services are to be offered.

The idea for the fee came from the concept that only people who actually 
needed them would get them if there was a fee attached.  Others could use 
semi-random values.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords