Subject: RE: Site Locals - a silly suggestion

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 07:32:28 -0700

>> At 09:11 AM 4/16/2003 +0300, EricLKlein wrote:
>> As the addresses ::10:x:x:x (and the rest of the RFC 1918 addresses)

> Aleksey
> IMHO, it is not going to work, because there is no IID field
> here and hence a lot of stuff would simply be broken.

Correct. Besides, hasn't this stuff been taken out of RFC 3513?

Nice try Eric, but no cigar this time. Keep trying though.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:42:45 +0300

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
To: "Quality Quorum" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
"EricLKlein" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: Site Locals - a silly suggestion

> Correct. Besides, hasn't this stuff been taken out of RFC 3513?

Seems I missed this one, how will the old RFC 1918 addresses be dealt with
in the new ::x:x:x:x world of IPv6?