I've heard about people who want to allocate IPv6 address to cars instead of registration plates (not to a CPU in embedded in a car), and other to national I-D cards ;-)
I fear that many other folks who have a very vague understanding of what an IPv6 address is for gets even more confused that they currently are. The fact that a number is 128 bits long doesn't entail it to be called an IPv6 address when it's not routable. Thierry On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:10:30 +1100 Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But nothing in what you have said is inconsistent with the proposition > that there is _no_ requirement to allocate IPv6 unicast address space > for this form of use of 128 numbers. > > As you yourself point out "they are non-routeable" and theya re > understood to be "semantically different". > > i.e. what you are going with the number in this context is really > interesting, and a Good Thing in terms of furthering our understanding > of the implications of the identifier / locator split. But I have yet > to see a justification as to why these numbers should also entail a > reservation in the IPv6 unicast number space. Indeed, I can think of > some tolerable arguments as to why they should deliberately clash with > unicast address values. > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
