RFC1918 equiv

[Hal Snyder]

Chuck Yerkes <chuck+6bone@snew.com> writes:

> I'm at a place that needs to start using IPv6, but isn't ready
> to try 6-bone.  We need to setup a router/prefix advertising
> daemon and, therefore, need a prefix to offer the machines.
> I could make something up, but I've recovered too many companies
> from that in IPv4 land.
> 
> What is an appropriate prefix to use for a non-routable IPv6
> network?  The moral equivalent of 10/8 or 192.168/16?

I'd like to add to the question.

RFC 1884 specifies fec0::/10 for site-local use.

Yet the Kame implementation notes have this to say about site-local:

  Site-local address is very vaguely defined in the specs, and both
  specification and KAME code need tons of improvements to enable its
  actual use. For example, it is still very unclear how we define a
  site, or how we resolve hostnames in a site. There are work underway
  to define behavior of routers at site border, however, we have
  almost no code for site boundary node support (both forwarding nor
  routing) and we bet almost noone has. We recommend, at this moment,
  you to use global addresses for experiments - there are way too many
  pitfalls if you use site-local addresses.

  - http://www.dqc.org/cgi-bin/lxr/source/netinet6/IMPLEMENTATION


This makes me wonder a) are there any signs of resolving the issues
above and b) are people going ahead and addressing internal nets with
fec0:: anyway?

Kame's IPv6 stack is not the only one out there, but the note makes it
sound like a general problem.