Re: IAB and "private" numbering

[Mark Smith <random () 72616e646f6d20323030342d30342d31360a nosense org>]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:12:13 +0000 (GMT)
"Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com> 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