I think you are correct that ::10:x:x:x is automatically grandfathered by the addressing architecture, but surely it is something we should discourage.
Brian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK EricLKlein wrote: > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
