Hans Kruse wrote:
>
> This may be a nit -- but wouldn't it make more sense then to call you
> preferred course of action "B", and publish 2002:RFC1918 as the (temporary)
> replacement?
I can't see a single argument in favour of importing the RFC1918 mess
into IPv6. Such addresses would be worse t
This may be a nit -- but wouldn't it make more sense then to call you
preferred course of action "B", and publish 2002:RFC1918 as the (temporary)
replacement?
I guess I am suggesting that the WG pursue its work in such a way that we
do not create a vacuum; I feel strongly that the set of IPv6
