> -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:05 PM > To: Brian Dickson; Iljitsch van Beijnum > Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: RE: Stupid ULA discussion > > Hi Brian, > > > And to point out the existence of a suitable replacement for IPv4's > > 10.0.0.0/8 et al, if they want a non-registered, non-unique, truly > > non-routable address space that maps well to their current > RFC 1918 space. > > > And that would be the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address space for RFC 1918. > > I.e. ::ffff:10.0.0.0, ::ffff:172.16.0.0 and > ::ffff:192.168.0.0 (as /104, > > /108, and /112 respectively.) > > Please do not suggest anything remotely close to this. The v4 > mapped v6 address > space is for API compatibility purposes only (i.e. use AF_INET6 with > v4 addresses). These addresses should never ever appear on the wire.
Aww shucks. And I had been holding that concept in my back of last-resort tricks. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
