North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
In message <[email protected]>, Leo Bicknell writes: > > > > >In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley wr= >ote: >> Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is=20 >> needed? > >I think people have found many good uses for IPv4 1918 space, and >that it is likely they would want to migrate those applications as >directly as possible to IPv6. Since supporting that sort of migration >does not require a huge amount of address space or burden on the >addressing processes, I see no reason not to have 1918 space in >IPv6. > >However, both of these proposals go well beyond how 1918 space works >today, and both make promises of "global uniqueness" that are at >best inappropriate, at worst a road to disaster. > There are cetainly main uses; one can quibble over whether or not they're "good"... That said, see draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt In not very different form, it's likely to be approved soon by the IESG. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
|