> Site locals as defined in draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt are > functionally no different than RFC 1918 addresses for IPv4.
RFC 1918 addresses are intended only for isolated networks, with the only connections to the outside world to be provided by application level gateways. > Long term, less chaos will result if a block of addresses is set aside > as "unregulated spectrum" than if folks start configuring prefixes out > of the ~73% of the address space that is currently unassigned. It's not at all clear that RFC 1918 lessened the chaos caused by NAT. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
