] > ok, but if any special routing support for SL is removed, then the only ] > thing left is a private address space for SL. as in ipv4 case, i'm not ] > aware of any application treating 10.x.x.x addr any different from the ] > global routable ones. ] ] many such apps do treat 1918 addresses differently than ordinary ] addresses, in an attempt to work around problems caused by NATs. ]
then the purpose is to work around the NAT, not necessary related to the private addresses. if for any reason, people still want to use NAT for v6, then those applications still need to adjust. there is no other way around it. i can understand why people hate NAT for various reasons, but private address is not equal to NAT. cheers. - Naiming -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
