Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-02.txt

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:29:58 -0500 (EST)

Zefram <[email-masked]> wrote:

|The allocation bitmap would be 128GiB.  That fits onto one current
|commodity hard disk.  Are we really quibbling over who's going to have
|to pay for eternal reliable storage of such a trifling dataset?

Not really.  It's just folks grasping at straws in a desperate effort to
turn something simple into something complicated and expensive.  It will
be interesting to see if they are allowed to succeed.

|When this issue was raised on one of the previous occasions, some months
|ago, I considered setting up a proof-of-concept automated registry
|for 36-bit random numbers (thus scaled down by a mere factor of 16)
|on my home equipment.  Regrettably I never got round to doing that, but
|it seems it might still be of use.  Operating such a thing might also
|have useful lessons for the operation of the eventual prefix registry.
|Thoughts, anyone?

As I recall, at one point someone set up a proof-of-concept auto-allocator
just to show how easy it was to hand out prefixes.  It was shut down very
quickly. :(  I'd like to know who ``requested'' this...

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Zefram <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:37:14 +0000

>quickly. :(  I'd like to know who ``requested'' this...

As I recall, it was claiming to actually allocate prefixes.  I don't
intend to make any such unfounded claim.

-zefram