Re: [OPSAWG] Heads Up - Need to clarify the issue
Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 11/11/10 6:19 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: >>> If it is different, could you explain what it is? >> >> I believe my characterization of the prefix as a special use ipv4 >> address prefix (as are rfc 1918 address blocks) is accurate. >> >> The use is rfc-1918-like but the folks who believe that they need it >> would like to tell you not to use it for that purpose. > > Is it not globally unique, yes, is it unfettered in it's use (i.e. > 1918), then no. Joel, if you are defining as being 1918-like (whatever > that is) is simply !global_routing_table, then it's like 1918, just as > the rest of the bogon list, e space, 127/8, 0/8, etc. Please read the > last draft as to how the MUSTs and SHOULDs are defined. It IS different > for some values of different. I'm not sure if you're correcting me or clarifying my observation. I've read that draft and I don't believe what I've described is incorrect. In terms of using the term special use ipv4 prefix the term is well understood, see for example rfc 3330 and the v6 equivalent in 5156. _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops