Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > >> Or to ask it a different way, (and maybe this is the > > > >> solution) will all of the 10.x.x.x (and the other IPv4 > > > >> private addresses) suddenly become globally broadcast? > > > > > > >Please define 'global broadcast' > > > > > > Think of it as if they were now suddenly 1::10:x:x:x, valid > > > on the public > > > internet, and "routable" even though they were private > > > before. This is what > > > I meant by "global" probably pore phrasing, but this example > > > should show > > > what I was asking. > > > > 1:: ? I hope you meant what other people proposed as > > 2002::10.x.x.x which is just a direct map of IPv4's > > RFC1918 space of which 10/8 is one of them. > > There's a caveat to using 2002:FOO (where FOO is in private address > space). If any implementation in the network has 6to4 > pseudo-interface enabled, the packets it sends in that > network will be blackholed.
Good point. > Not necessarily a bad thing, but one has to be careful when > proclaiming it as a solution. That's why I'd rather see a /32 or something out of which organisations can request space (/48's) for non-internet connected networks. Because the /48's will be too scattered around the world and only /35's or bigger are allowed in the DFZ at this moment this would also make sure that nobody will route between them over the global inet. But they are globally unique which overcomes all the "we will need NAT because we are merging" and other problems. Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
