[136210] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chuck Anderson)
Tue Feb 1 18:40:29 2011
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:38:46 -0500
From: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <8998E21B-14FB-45A8-A849-D1416E946505@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet.
What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected
networks? Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly
from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or
more?
