Hello, I was wondering if RFC1918 addresses were, in RFC3484 sense, supposed to be considered of the same or of a smaller scope than public IPv4 addresses? Say a dual-stack host has a private IPv4 with a default (NATted) route, and 6to4 and/or Teredo IPv6 connectivity (no native) If an implementation treats RFC1918 as differently scoped from public IPv4 addresses, it will prefer the IPv6 pseudotunnels through the relays over the native IPv4 link. My personal take is that this is a bad idea (and it contradicts the statement I made last week), but I'd like to have other's opinion... Regards, -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.