[arin-ppml] ULA-C

[Fred Baker]

On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:

> Organisations are not permanent. If the administration using the prefix goes away then shouldn't the prefix be reclaimed? Also, isn't it at least some what possible that the need for a prefix go away? Should that organisation be forced to keep an uneeded prefix, especially when others likely do need it?

well, you didn't answer my question, so maybe I shouldn't have to answer yours :-)

I have no problem with your statement in principle. I'm just wondering how you enforce it.

> ~Chris
> 
> My Android sent this message - hence the top post.
> 
> 
>> On Mar 31, 2010 6:17 PM, "Fred Baker" <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dumb question.
>> 
>> The complaint with ULAs as presently formulated is that there is a non-zero probability of them colliding.
>> 
>> If you give a prefix to your favorite admin and have them number their network with it, and then re-assign the prefix to someone else, what's the probability that you have a collision?
>> 
>> I think you need to accept that once put into use, a ULA will be in use by that administration permanently. You obviously see otherwise.  Fill me in?
>> On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Scott Leibrand w...
>> 
>> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are...
>> 
> 

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF