Ultimately, as I wrote with others some nine years ago, some practices
should not be codified. With IPv4 at least there was a plausible
argument for network 10. I didn't like it, nor did I agree with it, but
it was plausible. The same cannot be said for v6.
Incidentally, Sun & HP's use of default network numbers didn't really
cause any great consternation or motivation for RFC 1597, so far as I
could tell. Were that the case we wouldn't have needed either a /16 or
a /8.
Eliot
- Re: site local addresses (wa... Spencer Dawkins
- Re: site local addresses Simon Leinen
- RE: site local addresses (was Re... Paul Hoffman / VPNC
- Re: site local addresses (was Re... Ted Hardie
- Re: site local addresses (was Re... Keith Moore
- Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Keith Moore
- RE: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Margaret Wasserman
- RE: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Tony Hain
- Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Eliot Lear
- RE: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Tony Hain
- RE: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT.... Eliot Lear
- RE: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Richard Carlson
- Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Keith Moore
- Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT.... Richard Carlson
- RE: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Michel Py
- RE: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Jeroen Massar
- RE: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Fred Baker
- Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Tim Chown
- Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Stephen Sprunk
- Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Måns Nilsson
- Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT... Pekka Savola