As we are all looking at what to do with site locals, has anyone any text on what happens to the old RFC 1918 addresses?
>From what I have seen the 0::10:x:x:x is still going to need to be treated as site local (private) as in a 6to4 enfironment we still need to maintain the old rules (at least until 4 is really dead, and that can be years away). Thus we can depreciate FEC:: /10 right now, and allow the old RFC 1918 addresses to continue to fill in the needs that people seem to want in a non-routable address. Otherwise we will not only need to depreciate FEC:: /10 but also all of the current installations of RFC 1918. This will also be where people try to sneak NATv6 into the network as these addresses (0::10:x:x:x) were hijacked years ago, and I don't see how we will get them back now. Eric -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
