[111320] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Tue Feb 3 18:43:29 2009
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <7094FC6A-E554-49C6-9C37-9363F30E0534@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:43:21 +1300
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 4/02/2009, at 12:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> There is the ULA-Random space, but, I'm not sure if that got
> ratified or was
> rescinded. I really don't see a need for RFC-1918 in
> the IPv6 world. RFC-1918 was intended to solve a problem with a
> shortage
> of address space by allowing disparate private networks to recycle
> the same
> numbers behind NAT or for use on non-connected networks. There is no
> such shortage in IPv6. I think it is wiser to number non-connected
> IPv6 networks
> from valid unique addresses since there is no shortage.
ULA is useful for organisations that cannot get an RIR allocation/
assignment, so are likely to need to re-number.
If they number on ULA *in addition to* whatever space their ISP gives
them, they do not need to alter any internal DNS, ACLs, etc. etc. if/
when they re-number. An easy example of a good use for ULA might be
the internal recursive DNS server addresses that the DHCPv6 server
hands out.
If they are so inclined, they might even re-number dynamically if they
get their prefix using PD.
--
Nathan Ward
