Christian Huitema wrote: > 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?
I would agree with this, but I would feel more comfortable with an explicit statement rather than an implicit one. I have been speaking to different companies here in Israel, and the basic answer is that if I can not have site locals and NAT then I will not move to IPv6. This is people speaking strictly from a perceived security issue where they do not what the (bank, telephone company, or other fill in the blank here) to have their private secure data addressable from the internet just because there is a change in the IP version. It seems that based on the security failures in the various NT servers and firewalls they are sticking to unreachability as they key security option. Eric -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
