Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:41:18 +0100 (BST)
Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk> wrote:

> > The RFC provides for two address ranges in fc00::/7, one for random
> > prefixes (fc00::/8), the other reserved for later management (fd00::/8).
>
> Later, in some undefined way. A PI lacking enterprise considering
> doing v6 this way either waits or decides the available space will do
> as someone will fix the managment later. Sixxs demonstrated that some
> will see a need
>
> With low take up of v6 it's early to know what they will see important
>
> > The more important it is to you that your allocation be unique, the
> > more careful you will be to choose a truly random one.
>
> So a way to have really unique is reasonable.
>
> > The chance that any
> > random prefix will conflict with any chosen prefix is very, very small.
> > The chance that two conflicting prefixes would belong to entities that
> > will ever actually interact is even smaller.
>
> People still play the lotteries.

And those people, and some others by the looks of it, don't appear to
understand statistics and chance ...

> brandon