>> At this point in time I would advise to consider site-local addresses >> dead. Although I was among those who voted not to deprecate them, the >> problem needed to be solved and we need to move on. You could use a 6to4 >> address with an RFC1918 address as the v4 address. For 10.0.0.0/8 this >> translates into 2002:0A00::/24. > > I could do, but (in my mind) that's worse than using a site-local address! > However if the final decision has been made I guess something like this > may be the best option, unless...
the IPv6 W.G does not do "final decisions", just wait 6 months and site-locals are back on the table. consensus has to be reached on the mailing list in any case. even though site-locals are discouraged, I would be surprised if the fec0::/10 bit-pattern will be re-allocated to something else. i.e you can safely use them for your purpose. >> Why don't you request a /32 from RIPE anyway? > > I think I may try, I expect cost will be an issue though (i.e. it would > have to be free of charge). public addresses is the best choice. /ot -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
