[136161] 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 16:20:04 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D482A33.8010100@brightok.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:14:13 -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 7:43 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On 2/1/2011 9:23 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
>> I really,*really* expect my CPE router*not* to remove global
>> addresses from the LAN interface(s) when the link to the Internet
>> goes down. My internal services should go on working with their
>> global addresses. This is how my tunneled IPv6 works today.
>>=20
>> Am I being an unreasonable engineer in this respect?
>=20
> This depends. Will you have a static assignment? What will be the =
lifetime values issued by your ISP? Granted, You should be able to =
maintain them at least 2 hours, though in a multiple router scenario, =
I'm not sure how well they'll take to routing unpreferred prefixes.
>=20
> ULA isn't a bad thing. It also doesn't interfere with your GUA. =
There's really no reason NOT to have ULA in CPE devices. If your DSL is =
down for a day or two, do you really want to worry about addressing? Do =
you want to connect to the Internet before you can have addressing?
>=20
ULA is a bad thing. There are multiple problems likely to be caused by =
it.
There really are reasons NOT to put ULA in CPE devices. There are better =
solutions
to the downed internet connection than ULA.
Owen
>=20
> Jack
