[75181] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Frisvold)
Mon Nov 8 16:53:14 2004
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:43:45 -0500
From: "Jason Frisvold" <friz@corp.ptd.net>
To: "Eric Gauthier" <eric@roxanne.org>, <nanog@Merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gauthier [mailto:eric@roxanne.org]=20
> Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Hello,
>=20
> I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects=20
> of v6 addressing
> nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never=20
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,=20
> 0::192.168.0.0/112, and 0::172.16.0.0/116 (or whatever the=20
> appropriate masks=20
> would be) all function as v6 addresses with exactly the same=20
> properties at the=20
> 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?
=20
> Eric :)
--
Jason Frisvold
Penteledata
