8 Nov
2004
8 Nov
'04
3:15 p.m.
Hello, I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects of v6 addressing nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never understood why we needed a new set of RFC1918-like IPv6 space. Wouldn't 0::10.0.0.0/104, 0::192.168.0.0/112, and 0::172.16.0.0/116 (or whatever the appropriate masks would be) all function as v6 addresses with exactly the same properties at the current RFC1918 space? Eric :)