[75166] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Gauthier)
Mon Nov 8 15:28:50 2004
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:15:37 -0500
From: Eric Gauthier <eric@roxanne.org>
To: nanog@Merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20041108195312.GA91916@ussenterprise.ufp.org>; from bicknell@ufp.org on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:53:12PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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 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?
Eric :)
