> >> 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.
I think this is why this is turing out to be such a heated argument. Some of us are trying to learn from history in order to repeate it because we too "have a sense of d�j� vu." Others are looking at how hard it will be to implement it at the application layer. I can appriciate this concern. I had a discussion yesterday as to weither in the for seeable future (say 2 - 3 years) I can assume that the customers of my softweare will have a dual stack router as my first hop. OR if I could use the dual stack built into the server OS. Our final decision was that we can not convert our database to pure IPv6 and let the hardware translate for us, so we will have to do it in the appliaction. But knowing this is better if we can avoid having to slap together fixes later for what people will probably do again (i.e. the hijacking of addresses as de facto private). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
