Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 20/1/21 18:10, John Levine wrote:
> In article <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=[e-mail]> you write:
>> The proposal is to reserve a significant block of IPv6 space (e.g.
>> 2002::/16) as non routable address space to be allocated in Class A/B/C
>> sized chunks on a permanent basis either through random assignment or by a
>> new registrar TBD for a negligible one-time fee ($0.10 or less). This would
>> provide significant operational benefits for large enterprises managing
>> complex networks.
> 
> This sounds a lot like ULAs. You generate a 40 bit random number,
> prefix it with FD and that's your own /48. If you have a decent random
> number genarator the chances of your 40 bit number colliding with
> anyone else's are insignificant.  See RFC 4193.

No. Collissions are actually almost guaranteed (birthday paradox).

What the spec says is that *if you grab a handful of ULA networks* they 
(not the entire ULA universe) are quite unlikely to collide.



> I gather the problem in practice is that rather than a 40 bit random
> number, too many people use one that spells something cute or
> memorable in hex.

That's correct -- non-compliant with RFC4193, but still correct.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492