Mike, >> Michel Py wrote: >> 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.
> Mike Saywell wrote: > I could do, but (in my mind) that's worse than using a > site-local address! That's what I also think but you have to do with what you have on the shelf. I actually don't recommend using FECO::/10 anymore although it is more than probable that it will not be reallocated to another use any time soon. In the midterm you might find implementations that hardcode a blackhole. > However if the final decision has been made I guess something > like this may be the best option, unless... The final decision has not been made; what is decided during WG meetings needs to be confirmed on the mailing list. However, given the fact that some pro site-locals such as myself will recommend going with ahead with the deprecation for the sake of not staying stuck on this for years.... Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
