>I agree with kre, stick to fec0::/10. So many people have spoken in favour of that that I think I need to state the contrary position. Having uniquish IDs under fec0::/10 may well be a useful technique, but it's quite different from the suggestion that we started with, which was to have persistent unique prefixes in globally-scoped address space. For me, a major part of the appeal of fc00::/7 addresses is that they don't come with any non-global-scope semantics attached, and so they'll play nicely (i.e., interact in the obvious way) with routable global addresses.
People have started to suggest attaching scoping semantics to fc00::/7 adddresses, which is what led to fc00::/10. I think this was a mistake. Leave fc00::/7 without special semantics -- that's the point of it. People that want scoping: if you want fc00::/10, you know where to get it. -zefram -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
