[136219] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cameron Byrne)
Tue Feb 1 19:02:25 2011
In-Reply-To: <20110201233846.GV13890@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:58:00 -0800
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:
> 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? =A0Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly
> from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or
> more?
>
You might be asking the wrong person for advice or reasoning.
Horses for courses. ULAs have a place.
Cameron
