Eliot Lear wrote:
As I wrote previously, one must understand the history in order to
understand its applicability to the future. The reason there was a
problem at all was that there was a not just a non-zero chance of an
address clash but that this percentage rose based based on
the class of
address chosen. If you took 80.1.4.6 you clashed with all of
80 because
classless addressing had not made it into the base yet. The
chance of
this sort of clash in IPv6 is miniscule. Not that it's a good idea.
Yes but most of the clashes were based on using Sun's or HP's addresses
because those were published in documents. The lack of robust route
filtering tools at the time made the likelyhood of real problems high.
If we remove the definition of FEC0::, people will gravitate toward
whatever shows up in documents, so the risk of collision at merger time
is still high.
Even so, if you used upper range class B or C address space
the chance
of a clash at the time was low (still is). And indeed in the
case of a
merger you were better off than using net 10 because the
likelihood of
clash with net 10 is high.
So you are suggesting that people just randomly pick space from 3a00::
since they should be long retired by the time we find the conflict? ;)
Tony
Eliot