> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > We already have alternatives
> > > to site-local addresses: 6to4 addresses based on PI or RFC1918
> > > IPv4 addresses.
> >
> > 6to4 addresses based on RFC 1918 addresses should be forbidden.
> > IMHO, this is an oversight in the 6to4 RFC.
>
> They
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > RFC 3056 says:
> > >
> > >Suppose that a subscriber site has at least one valid, globally
> > >unique 32-bit IPv4 address, referred to in this document as
> > >V4ADDR. This address MUST be duly allocated to the site by an
> > >address
> RFC 3056 says:
>
>Suppose that a subscriber site has at least one valid, globally
>unique 32-bit IPv4 address, referred to in this document as V4ADDR.
>This address MUST be duly allocated to the site by an address
>registry (possibly via a service provider) and it MUST NOT be a
>
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> > RFC 3056 says:
> >
> >Suppose that a subscriber site has at least one valid, globally
> >unique 32-bit IPv4 address, referred to in this document as V4ADDR.
> >This address MUST be duly allocated to the site by an address
> >registry (poss
Brian,
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> RFC 3056 says:
> [SNIP]
> Now, which word in "MUST NOT" is hard to understand?
I think you give way too much importance to what a MUST NOT in an RFC
can achieve.
- As seen with the Elz appeal recently, the IETF is not interesting in
forcing users to configure
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > > We already have alternatives
> > > > to site-local addresses: 6to4 addresses based on PI or RFC1918
> > > > IPv4 addresses.
> > >
> > > 6to4 addresses based on RFC 1918 addresses should be forbidden.
> > > IMHO, this is an ov
I'll file this in the place where I put things that might need fixing
in RFC 3056 one of these years. Let's move on for now; we can argue about
the exact words when the time comes.
Brian
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > > RFC 3056 says:
> > > >
> > > >
