On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote: > >> 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.
Right .. but this was covered in the meeting. Those folks present felt that there really is little need for "RFC1918-like" space even if site-locals get deprecated. I think this was quite explicit. As for the alternatives, you already listed some, plus using site-locals regardless of the deprecation. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
