On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 01:54:58AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > I, for one, am very adamantly against reserving 2000:0001::/32. That > wastes a complete 2000::/16 (if, for some purposes, a whole /16 or first > parts of it are needed). An extremely bad idea, IMO. I'd recommend taking > something from 2001, like 2001:0001::/32 or 2001:FFFF::/32.
Well, looks like 2000:0001::/32 is now what sites running IPv6 NAT will use inside their networks... won't be long :( Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
