[131274] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?windows-1252?Q?Re:_Why_ULA:_low_collision_chance_=28Was:_IPv6_?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 21 19:54:58 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinLRUpNtUnTOxr=EGZaar+e+-=GvdRyPiwz9pFy@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:43:02 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 21, 2010, at 6:02 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
>> That's assuming ULA would be the primary addressing scheme used. If
>> that became the norm, I agree, the extra uniqueness would be
>> desirable, perhaps to the point that you should be asking an authority
>> for FC00::/8 space to be assigned. But then why wouldn't you just ask
>> for a GUA at that point.
>
> Because you might want space that doesn't route on the Internet so
> that if your routes accidentally leak external folks still can't reach
> you?
>
That is, at best, a false sense of security which is worse than no security.
Owen
