[136237] 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 21:06:50 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110201233846.GV13890@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:59:45 -0800
To: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Chuck Anderson 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? 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?
For a completely disconnected network, I don't care what you do,
use whatever number you want. There's no need to coordinate that
with the internet in any way.
For a network connected to a connected network, either get GUA from
an RIR or get GUA from the network you are connected to or get
GUA from some other ISP/LIR.
There are lots of options.
I'd like to see RIR issued GUA get a lot cheaper. I'd much rather see
cheap easy to get RIR issued GUA than see ULA get widespread use.
Owen
