On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:12:13 +0000 (GMT) "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com> wrote: <snip>
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
Sort of do, with a random component in them to help attempt to prevent collisions : "RFC 4193 - Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses" http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4193.html
IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing is the right course. every other attempt to split the assignements into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results.
agreed
See above ... that was pretty much the fundamental goal of ULAs - unique address space, not dependant on a provider, not intended to be globally routable, preferred over global addresses so that connections can survive global address renumbering events. Regards, Mark. -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier