At 03:46 PM 6/6/2003 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
I still have a small preference preference for using FC00::/7 for the
globally unique local addresses due to the larger global ID, instead of
reusing the FEC0::/10 prefix. But either would work.
The problem with using FECO::/10 for these addresses
Using myself as the example...
Does anyone else find it sub-optimal that we are spending so
much time arguing about what address bits should be used for
local addressing when we have yet to gain consensus on:
- The requirements for local addressing?
- The best technical
Zefram,
Robert Elz wrote:
What we're lacking is any way to make a globally-scoped
non-routable address. That is, what gives us global
scoping in 2000::/3 (and most other unallocated spaces,
one presumes) is the routability - the two go hand in
hand.
Zefram wrote:
Here we're talking
Date:Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:02:38 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The problem with using FECO::/10 for these addresses is that there
| are implementations that include special semantics to handle
| the ambiguity of
