RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

["Jason Frisvold" <friz () corp ptd net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gauthier [mailto:eric () roxanne org] 
> Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects 
> of v6 addressing
> nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never 

Nor have I ... I'm just starting to look at IPv6 now....  This seems like a good discussion to jump in on though. :)

> understood why we needed
> a new set of RFC1918-like IPv6 space.  Wouldn't 0::10.0.0.0/104, 
> 0::192.168.0.0/112, and 0::172.16.0.0/116 (or whatever the 
> appropriate masks 
> would be) all function as v6 addresses with exactly the same 
> properties at the 
> current RFC1918 space?

If the existing RFC1918 space will exist in IPv6 as described above, that can, presumably, be used in the same way 
existing 1918 space is.  For instance, as non-routable loopback addresses for routers, switches, etc.  Correct?  Or is 
IPv6 NAT batter suited for this in the future?
 
> Eric :)


--
Jason Frisvold
Penteledata