[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed May 30 05:32:26 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Conversely, it would be rather trivial to add random address > assignment to IPv4. ICMP router solicitation, auto configure > into the subnet, randomly assign a IP, look for a collision. > AppleTalk did it 15 years ago. Worked good for small > deployments. Would be fun to write the code and check it > into several distros.... If you don't, then somebody else will. Remember when I said that one strategy to mitigate IPv4 exhaustion is to share addresses between regions, i.e. an American small business could use the same allocation as a Korean small business and a French small business. It is unlikely that they would ever need to communicate much outside their regions. And the RIRs could step in an manage such allocations to prevent too many people using the same address and to ensure that the users understand the limitations of such shared addresses. However, if your devices could pick a random IPv4 address, check whether or not it is Internet reachable, then check routability to some major sites, and then decide to use it... Note that this would also solve the RFC 1918 exhaustion problem that many large enterprises are struggling with. In general, I'm in favor of making all possible mitigation tactics available and letting the market decide. Your random allocation and test tactic. The class E address tactic. The expansion of RFC1918 address space tactic. And others yet to be though of. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list