[131204] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 =?windows-1252?Q?=97_Unique_local_addres?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Thu Oct 21 12:06:32 2010
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:06:22 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F24AC238-7DBF-4823-AA4F-51D882888B5E@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: matthew@matthew.at
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/21/2010 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>> To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
>>> both ULA and global addressing in your network.
>> Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses from provider #1 and PA addresses from provider #2 in your network.
>>
> Or PI addresses from an RIR.
One set of PI addresses and BGP multihoming shouldn't be necessary (but
is). The remaining parts of the protocol stack should (but don't) work
just fine if you have two sets of PA addresses. They also should (but
don't) work just fine if you have one GUA and one ULA, for many of the
same reasons. (There are subtle differences that make this case slightly
better in some ways, slightly worse in others)
>> Only nobody wants to do that either.
>>
> There are lots of good reasons not to want to do that.
Agreed. That was my point here, and above.
Matthew Kaufman
