On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Timo Sirainen <t...@iki.fi> wrote: >> >> Is there a reason why 172.16.0.0/12 was left out of the change ^^ ? > > Is it actually used? :) I've used 192.168 in my home network and all > corporate networks I've seen have been 10/8. But yeah, I guess since there > aren't more than those 3 I'll just add it (I thought there were more of them, > but looks like they're reserved for other purposes).
Yeah as others have mentioned - also not sure whether it is worth the effort to support IPv6's 'private' network (fc00::/7)? I havent seen anyone making use of this for their v6 enabled sites but others may have input here. thanks -- .warren
