On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > > We already have alternatives > > to site-local addresses: 6to4 addresses based on PI or RFC1918 > > IPv4 addresses. > > 6to4 addresses based on RFC 1918 addresses should be forbidden. > IMHO, this is an oversight in the 6to4 RFC.
They are already forbidden (but perhaps you're saying the forbidding should be even stronger than it's today). You certainly can't use 2002:RFC1918 addresses inside generic sites -- when a router happens to switch on the 6to4 pseudo-interface, all the packets sent to 2002:RFC1918 will get blackholed. In theory, you could deploy sites with 2002:RFC1918 addresses but being careful not to deploy anything enabling 6to4, but why would you bother when you could just hijack any prefix you'd want instead? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
