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
With due respect to my colleague Steve, I think this depends on what "not very
different from" means. I'm currently holding a DISCUSS on this document, for
reasons related to the ones Leo raised. In particular, I strongly believe that allocating
this space:
This document only allocates the prefix (FC00::/8) for centrally
assigned local IPv6 addresses. The characteristics and technical
allocation requirements for centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses
will be defined in a separate document.
is very unwise. One of the problems with site local was the prefix got
allocated but the work on what it would mean never got full community
support. Doing the same thing twice just strikes me as dumb. I have
some other very serious concerns about the extent to which the document
presumes that these will be routed between ASes without recognizing
that this means they could become the v6 swamp. So this discussion is
*not* over, and I believe comments from operators to the WG and to
the IESG are still very appropriate.
regards,
Ted Hardie
is very unwise. One of the problems with site local was the prefix got
allocated but the work on what it would mean never got full community
support. Doing the same thing twice just strikes me as dumb.
do you mean 1918 twice or site-loco twice? both are stoopid.
either is stoopid. it'll be interesting to see if the ivtf
does it again. stick to your guns.
randy