[125885] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sun Apr 25 23:02:50 2010
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100425233230.GX20959@hezmatt.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000
Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400
> > Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad
> > > ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
> >
> > My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about
> > robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's
> > internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being
> > available and being assigned global address space. That's what the
> > global only people are saying.
> >
> > (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP
> > login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got
> > address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
>
> I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to
> that one -- the link-local address.
>
Ever tried to ping a link local address?
If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it
some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is.
> - Matt
>
> --
> "You are capable, creative, competent, careful. Prove it."
> -- Seen in a fortune cookie
>
