[131263] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Why_ULA=3A_low_collision_chance?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Oct 21 18:42:57 2010
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:42:47 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4CC0BE69.8050207@bogus.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> Announce your gua and then blackhole it and monitor your prefix. you can
> tell if you're leaking. it's generally pretty hard to tell if you're
> leaking rfc 1918 since your advertisement may well work depending on the
> filters of your peers but not very far.
This is always the argument I hear from corporate customers concerning
wanting NAT. If mistake is made, the RFC 1918 space isn't routable.
They often desire the same out of v6 for that reason alone.
I personally could understand the fear of wondering if your stateful
firewall is properly working and doing it's job and how a simple mistake
could have disastrous effects that NAT systems usually don't have. ULA
w/ NAT very well may become the norm.
Jack
