Keith Moore wrote:
More on this point - I have two specific concerns about the use of "private addresses"
1. potential confusion with RFC 1918 addresses, including the association of RFC 1918 addresses with "non-routable outside of the local network" and "used with NATs".
2. potential confusion with RFC 3041 "privacy addresses"
Unfortunately English doesn't seem to have many antonyms for "public", but as politically-correct but not misleading alternatives to GUPI/PUPI, IDEA, and "private addresses" I suggest that either "nonpublic addresses" or "limited-access addresses" or perhaps just "limited addresses" would be better.
You are coming dangerously close to completing the full-circle and bringing us back to the term "limited range" which was en vogue for some time.
Frankly, I see this as an endless rathole that we could spin on forever; Brian's suggestion gives us a clean way to avoid it.
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Politically, calling them private addresses will work best, even if it offends end-to-end purists such as myself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
