On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:44:40 +0800 Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get caught out by collisions.
The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch someone out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess.
You assume that people simply select ULA prefixes randomly and don't start doing linear allocations from the beginning of the ULA range.
Any time there is a parameter that can be configured, there is a possibility that people will misconfigure it. The only way to completely prevent that being a possibility is to eliminate the parameter. We can prevent people from getting addressing wrong by not putting addresses in the IP header - but I, and I suspect most people, would prefer their computers not to be a dumb terminal connected to a mainframe. Or we can make the network robust against misconfiguration, and put in place things like BCP38. This is all starting to sound a bit like Chicken Little. Regards, Mark.