North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IAB and "private" numbering
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:12:13 +0000 (GMT) "Christopher L. Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> > > I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't > seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :) > Sort of do, with a random component in them to help attempt to prevent collisions : "RFC 4193 - Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses" http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4193.html > > > > IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP > > protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing > > is the right course. every other attempt to split the assignements > > into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results. > > agreed > See above ... that was pretty much the fundamental goal of ULAs - unique address space, not dependant on a provider, not intended to be globally routable, preferred over global addresses so that connections can survive global address renumbering events. Regards, Mark. -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier
|