I'd like to ask for some general consensus on the following questions:
1) Are "::10.1.1.1" and "::169.254.1.1" legal IPv6 addresses?
(They look like global IPv6 addresses, but aren't globally unique.)
RFC 2373 does not mention any such restriction, and so
implies "yes".
2) Similarly, is "2002:0A01:0101:..." a legal IPv6 address?
The current 6to4 draft implies "no".
3) Is it reasonable that the answers to the above two questions
could be different?
(I'd personally rather the answer be the same for both, that
answer probably being "no", as this avoids a lot of ugly problems.)
And before anyone responds saying that "::10.1.1.1" should be
allowed so that you can talk between two hosts in a private IPv4
network, keep in mind that draft-templin-ngtrans-v6v4compat-*.txt
allows you to do the same thing with "fe80::200:5efe:10.1.1.1", which
is clearly a link-local address (on an encapsulation link covering the
private area) and so avoids the ugly problems "::10.1.1.1" has.
-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
