[136133] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Feb 1 12:35:14 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D4820E1.20600@brightok.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:29:43 -0800
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On 2/1/2011 12:03 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The rest... All those TiVOs, Laptops, Desktops, iPads, etc. all need
>> public addresses anyway, so, why bother with the ULA?
>>=20
>=20
> I think ULA is still useful for home networks. If the home router guys =
properly generate the ULA dynamically, it should stop conflicts within =
home networking. There's something to be said for internal services =
which ULA can be useful for, even when you do fall off the net.
>=20
>=20
> Jack
I prefer persistent GUA over ULA for that.
Owen
