[86651] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IAB and "private" numbering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Nov 12 23:32:45 2005
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:02:06 +1030
From: Mark Smith <random@72616e646f6d20323030342d30342d31360a.nosense.org>
To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0511121736330.20032@marvin.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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
