[address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Brian E Carpenter brc at zurich.ibm.com
Mon May 14 13:39:00 CEST 2007
On 2007-05-11 16:14, Fred Baker wrote: ... > One technical question I would ask. What does a "Central Authority" and > "IANA Assignment" have to do with a "Local" address of any type? It > seems in context that the major issue is an address prefix that is not > advertised to neighboring ISPs and can be generally configured to be > refused if offered by a neighboring ISP, in the same way that an RFC > 1918 address is not advertised and is generally refused between IPv4 > networks. In any draft on this topic, regardless of where it is > discussed, if central assignment is in view, the reason for having such > assignment should be clearly stated. Fred, the point is that ULAs should be unambiguous, so that if they happen to meet (e.g. via a VPN, or following a merge of two previously separate networks) there is no collision. Currently ULAs include a pseudo-random prefix, which leaves open a theoretical possibility of collision. Centrally-allocated ULAs would not have this issue. Brian