[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] closed network and need for global uniqe IP space

At 10:03 PM 23/12/2005, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Gert Doering wrote:
><snip>
> > The idea is that ULAs are random-generated in a way that makes it "fairly
> > unlikely" that you end up in an address collision.  But there is no
> > guarantee, of course.

indeed. The chances of collision exceed 0.5 once the pool of random;y drawn 
numbers exceeds 1.24 million.

> >
> > There is also a second sort of ULAs that are globally unique but still
> > private, but as far as I know, there is no registry yet that will hand
> > them out.  So these can't be used yet.
>
>Who would know more about this? I'm in the process of writing down some
>startup thoughts about how we can (and maybe should) implement IPv6 here
>where I work. It's a closed national network where security is prio 1 and
>we might also have to work/connect to other network of the same type in
>other countries... in short, we need to be globaly unique so we actually
>need that registrary to be there:)


the original ULA document combined both self-selected ULAs and 
registry-selected ULAs.

Over the period of a year of IETF consideration they were split in two, and 
the random self-selction method became RFC 4193 and the so-called centrally 
assigned IDs draft expired .

Some URLS:

- the history of the drafts: 
http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr/index.html

- the centrally assigned drafts: 
http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central/index.html

There was a long discussion on the IPv6 list about the issues with the 
operation of a registry. I've forgotten when, but around May - July 2003 
sounds familiar for some reason.

The concept of a central register of unique 40bit sequences is not 
completely dead. At RIPE 51 I described some current work at APNIC that 
includes a certificate identity scheme that uses this same concept 
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51/presentations/pdf/ripe51-address-certificate.pdf 
(see page 14 of the presentation).

I also did some maths of the collision probability of random 40bit long 
numbers (the so-called "birthday problem" in an expired draft 
(http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-huston-ipv6-local-use-comments/index.html).

It _may_ be the case that a form of centrally assigned unique 40 bit 
strings for use in the context of the original model of centrally-assigned 
unique local addresses may be a useful by-product of the certification work 
- but if it proceeds that this is likely to be some time away yet from 
becoming part of the service portfolio associated with certification.


regards,

   Geoff