> From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> > To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> > | > No, it isn't. It is a cleaned up replacement for 1918 addresses. > | which by itself is reason enough to kill it. > > Nothing of the kind. 1918 addresses were created because there was > demonstrated demand for stable local use only addressing. Nothing > has changed in the Internet to cause that demand to go away. > > We either provide a mechanism, or the users provide one of their own. There's something about this long controversy I don't udnerstand. Why do you need to provide any mechanism that does not already exist? Do you want to prevent people from using RFC 1918 addresses mapped to IPv6 addresses in the usual way? Could you prevent that use of RFC 1918 addresses if you wanted to? What about the new IPv4 site-local, automatically allocated addresses? Do you want to prevent their use as IPv6 mapped addresses? Could you? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com