Brian E Carpenter wrote: > While I'd personally love to declare RFC 1918 "Historic", it really is > completely IPv4 specific so we have no reason to reference it.
I would agree that RFC1918 is pure v4 issue, but we will need take into account that when these IPv4 networks are connected as part of IPv6 networks we could get flooded with a lot of the ::10.x.x.x addresses that are supposed to be "site local" under IPv4, but are now neither site local nor unique under IPv6. This is where we need to put in text in the Depriciation document, othewise we will end up with a lot of congestion and leakage from what used to be behind NATv4 or just local RFC1918 local site addresses. > > Where can I find the NATv6 group? I have a few things I'd like to > say to them... It looks like [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] the group working on the NAT issues. > > Brian > > EricLKlein wrote: > > > > I think the most basic RFC one was missed from the list: RFC1918. Especially > > since the NATv6 group is probably working under the presumptions that these > > addresses, or ones like them, still exist in IPv6. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
