Zefram wrote:

Alain Durand wrote:


If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48?



The opportunity to avoid this numbering clash. Idiots who use fd00::/48 will clash with each other, but the rest of us avoid clashes with each other and with the idiots.

If you look at RFC3513, site locals were defined as fec0::/10 (and not fec0::/48)
so you could have done exactly what you describe. There is nothing new.


- Alain.


-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to