North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
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@example.com> 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
"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.
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