Christian Huitema wrote: > Andrew, the draft has provision for both "registered unique local > addresses" and "probably unique local addresses". The registered unique > addresses are not valid on the Internet, but they definitely will not > collide with other addresses.
I am still have 2 concerns with these concepts: 1. People do not want to register their secure internal network nodes (bank central computes etc) so the "registered unique local addreses" may not meet their needs. They do not want to have even theoritically reachable addresses on a Cash machine or other secure node that needs to be connected as part of the private network. 2. For the "approxiamtely" or "probably" unique local addresses I am concerned that these addresses will eventually be assigned as part of the registered addresses and can then be in conflict with "legitimate" nodes. So between the 2, I do not see a solution that will work better than a RFC1918 type of address space. The more I hear about these options the more I want to bring back site local addresses. Eric -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
