Keith Moore wrote: > > > 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). > > yes, I'm saying that we should make it entirely clear that use of > RFC 1918 addresses within 6to4 addresses are a violation of the > standard, and that hosts should block them.
RFC 3056 says: Suppose that a subscriber site has at least one valid, globally unique 32-bit IPv4 address, referred to in this document as V4ADDR. This address MUST be duly allocated to the site by an address registry (possibly via a service provider) and it MUST NOT be a private address [RFC 1918]. Now, which word in "MUST NOT" is hard to understand? Brian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
