[136196] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Tue Feb 1 17:59:47 2011
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:58:00 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDE72574-9CEE-415A-B219-E4C67EF92396@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/1/2011 3:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Given the vast probability for abuse of ULA becoming de facto GUA later, I don't support ULA existing as the benefits are vastly overwhelmed by the potential for abouse.
If the world wants ULA to become the de facto GUA, no amount of arm
twisting and bulling will stop it.
There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work around it
seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I fully expect to
see protocols and networks within homes which will take full advantage
of ULA. I also expect to see hosts which don't talk to the public
internet directly and never need a GUA.
Jack
