In message <20041108195312.GA91916@ussenterprise.ufp.org>, Leo Bicknell writes:
In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley wr= ote:
Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is=20 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.
There are cetainly main uses; one can quibble over whether or not they're "good"... That said, see draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt In not very different form, it's likely to be approved soon by the IESG. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb