>> Pekka Savola wrote: >> People didn't see the need for RFC1918 space in IPv6.
Because of site-locals. With site-locals gone it is an entirely new ballgame. There is a need for private addresses, people will use them no matter if they are site-locals, 6to4 addresses with a v4 RFC1918 address or plain hijack of a global prefix like in the good old days. Then someone will write an RFC to try to contain the hijacks into a well-known range. I have a sense of d�j� vu. > Tony Hain wrote: > 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. Agree. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
