Tim,
>> Michel Py wrote: >> The trouble with using things such as XXXX:XXXX::/32 and >> YYYY:YYYY::/32 is that they can't be configured on a router and >> won't prevent the hijacking of a real prefix when labing the >> case, which is what the documentation prefix tries to prevent >> from happening. > Tim Chown wrote: > So if we do create this prefix, what's the difference between > this and an allocated prefix for private use in networks? Basically none. > You're suggesting it's not a documentation prefix, Not _only_ a documentation prefix. > but a prefix for use in (disconnected) networks. Throw in > v6 NAT and... ;) This is a very valid point that has been made several times before. It is clear that the documentation prefix is a prime candidate for hijacking for NAT purposes. That being said, there are plenty of other good candidates such as returned prefixes of 3ffe::/16, the entire 3ffe::/16 space after 6/6/6, 2002:RFC:1918::, a random prefix out of unallocated space in the C000::/16 range, etc. IMHO a _few_ /32 prefixes would be preferable for lab scenarios (for reasons outlined earlier) and would not encourage NAT more than a single one. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
