Tim Chown wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:39:33AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > > 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... > > But as Pekka says, won't 6to4 interfaces fail to deliver to 2002:<RFC1918> > if the network is IPv6 only, or doesn't use IPv4 private IPs?
They will fail. Delivery to private addresses does fail. That's because they're private. The point of mentioning 6to4 is that if you own one lousy IPv4 address, that gives you a /48. No need to use RFC 1918 addresses for that. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
