Michel Py writes:
> >> 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.
There is some appeal to 6to4 and 1918... it keeps
the problem within the cesspool of current usage
and doesn't try to rationalize it any further.
A maze of twisty addresses, all alike...
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
