[manet] Re: BABEL question

> The point is that RFC4193, Section 3.1 defines a format for ULAs that
> includes a 40-bit "Global ID" followed by a 16-bit "Subnet ID" field in
> the /64 prefix.

Sure.

> These values are to be assigned by infrastructure reference points, and
> not randomly assigned by some isolated MANET router seeking to configure
> a unique /128.  If MANET routers did that, then there would be
> opportunity for conflict with a properly-administered ULA prefix if the
> MANET ever came in contact with the Internet.

I don't see how that follows.  If you draw a random address in fc00::/7,
the probability of it conflicting with another node's address is
infinitesimal, no matter how the other node's address was assigned.

> while there would be a well-known IPv6 prefix value to differentiate
> these topology independent "MANET Local Addresses" from
> topology-dependent ULAs.

Sure, if the prefix assigned to MANETs is short enough so that collisions
are vanishingly unlikely.

-- Juliusz

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]