RFC1918 equiv

[Robert Elz]

    Date:        12 Dec 2000 21:25:28 -0600
    From:        Hal Snyder <hal@vailsys.com>
    Message-ID:  <873dft80k7.fsf@ghidra.vail>

  | Chuck Yerkes <chuck+6bone@snew.com> writes:
  | 
  | > What is an appropriate prefix to use for a non-routable IPv6
  | > network?  The moral equivalent of 10/8 or 192.168/16?

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

That's the answer to the original question, but ...

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

Yes, there is still a bunch more work to be done on site local.   None
of this affects the original question (for an isolated site) - for that
the issues don't arise (there are no borders to cross, by definition, and
nameservers can treat site-local just as they would treat global, which
is what they currently do, etc).

I believe that the KAME code (or any other working IPv6 code) is likely to
work just fine using site local in an isolated (IPv6) net.

Which isn't to say that the issues mentioned don't need to be worked on
for the other intended use of site-locals (use for disconnected sites was
always one intended use) - which is for allowing local net connections to
be unaffected by global address changes (ie: using site-local addressing
whenever talking within a site).

kre