Alain Durand wrote: > > Zefram wrote: > > >Alain Durand wrote: > > > > > >>If this is the case, what will we have gained from fec0::/48? > >> > >> > > > >The opportunity to avoid this numbering clash. Idiots who use fd00::/48 > >will clash with each other, but the rest of us avoid clashes with each > >other and with the idiots. > > > If you look at RFC3513, site locals were defined as fec0::/10 (and not > fec0::/48) > so you could have done exactly what you describe. There is nothing new.
There is something new: we will have given people a way to get a unique or effectively unique /48. I think Tim's implementation suggestion (the "make me a prefix" button) is a good idea, but of course it's outside IETF scope. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
