Pekka Savola wrote: > People didn't see the need for RFC1918 space in IPv6.
Just like they didn't see the need for private address space in IPv4 until there were massive deployments of whatever random numbers people found in documents. For those who have forgotten, private address space was not set aside to support NAT, it exists to provide space for disconnected networks, that won't collide with existing allocations when those attach. NAT came along later and took advantage of the existence of private space. There is a need for address space for disconnected networks. If the argument is to set aside a different set of address space and define it as unroutable, what is the point? We already have a defined unroutable space, what value does a different one add? Any issues that are raised for FEC0:: will hold for whatever new space gets defined. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
