> > While I'd personally love to declare RFC 1918 "Historic", it really is > > completely IPv4 specific so we have no reason to reference it. > > I would agree that RFC1918 is pure v4 issue, but we will need take into > account that when these IPv4 networks are connected as part of IPv6 > networks > we could get flooded with a lot of the ::10.x.x.x addresses that are > supposed to be "site local" under IPv4, but are now neither site local nor > unique under IPv6.
Frankly, I don't believe that we should worry about net 10 in the site local deprecation draft. The site local deprecation document is specifically about the prefix 0xFEC0::/10. In any case, such addresses are explicitly banned in the IPv6 addressing architecture. Section 2.5.5 of RFC 3513 states: Note: The IPv4 address used in the "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address" must be a globally-unique IPv4 unicast address. Why should we deprecate an address format that is already illegal? -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
