[136204] 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 18:26:33 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D488FF8.4010106@brightok.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:14:57 -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 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> 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.
>=20
Right... It's a toxic chemical. No matter how much we may end up wishing =
we could, we probably can't
uninvent it at this point. Regardless, I won't encourage and will =
actively discourage its use.
> 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.
>=20
I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet.
Owen
