> > as the contributor of the DNS-related paragraph near the end of RFC 1918 > > section 5, i can tell you that whatever the RFC says will only be a general > > hint to operators and implementors, who will proceed to do whatever they > > darn well want. > > Can we then not make the very simple conclusion that ULA's will be > routed on the Internet and such are nothing else but an alternative for > "PI"?
no. i showed you packet leaks, not route leaks. (did i misunderstand the minimum technical skillset nec'y for participation on this mailing list?) > As I mentioned before, it should not be called "Local" in any form, as it > will never be "Local", unless the definition of "Local" is only Earth, and > does not include Mars and other planets, yet. if we're down to the label engineering, then everything hard is now done? or are you making a funny that's intended to show absurdity somewhere? in any case i called it "local" in ULA-G because i was stealing wholesale from ULA-C (and i suspect they called it "local" because they were stealing from ULA). if you propose a term other than "private" (which is taken by RFC 1918) that means "non-public" in the sense meant by ULA-G and ULA-C and ULA, there might be great rejoicing. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
