North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IAB and "private" numbering

  • From: Mark Smith
  • Date: Sat Nov 12 23:34:11 2005

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:12:13 +0000 (GMT)
"Christopher L. Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote:


> 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"

> >
> > 	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.



        "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
                                                       - Bruce Schneier