On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 14:53 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley > wrote: > > Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is > > needed? > > I think people have found many good uses for IPv4 1918 space, and > that it is likely they would want to migrate those applications as > directly as possible to IPv6. Since supporting that sort of migration > does not require a huge amount of address space or burden on the > addressing processes, I see no reason not to have 1918 space in > IPv6. > > However, both of these proposals go well beyond how 1918 space works > today, and both make promises of "global uniqueness" that are at > best inappropriate, at worst a road to disaster.
Please read: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt That contains most of the answers to your questions ;) Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part