nanog mailing list archives
Re: IAB and "private" numbering
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:34:07 -0500
In message <4377924E.109 () peter-dambier de>, Peter Dambier writes:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:...I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)Yes, there was rfc1918 in IPv6 right from the beginning: Site local addresses "0xF80" dont leave a site. They can be routed within a site but they never get outside. Just like rfc1918 addresses do.
Yes, and site-local addresses have been removed from the spec, because of the many problems they cause. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Current thread:
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering, (continued)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering bmanning (Nov 12)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Geoff Huston (Nov 13)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Michael . Dillon (Nov 14)
- Message not available
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering bmanning (Nov 12)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Mark Smith (Nov 12)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Message not available
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Geoff Huston (Nov 13)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Peter Dambier (Nov 13)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Steven M. Bellovin (Nov 13)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Peter Dambier (Nov 14)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering David Conrad (Nov 15)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Geoff Huston (Nov 15)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Tony Tauber (Nov 14)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Mark Smith (Nov 14)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Daniel Karrenberg (Nov 17)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Mark Smith (Nov 17)