[136301] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jamie Bowden)
Wed Feb 2 08:15:04 2011
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:11:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20110201233846.GV13890@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
From: "Jamie Bowden" <jamie@photon.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Our classified networks aren't ever going to be connected to anything
but themselves either, and they need sane local addressing. Some of
them are a single room with a few machines, some of them are entire
facilities with hundreds of machines, but none of them are going to be
talking to a router or anything upstream, as neither of those exist on
said networks.
Jamie
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Anderson [mailto:cra@WPI.EDU]=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:39 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
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=20
> > around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I=20
> > fully expect to see protocols and networks within homes which will=20
> > take full advantage of ULA. I also expect to see hosts which don't=20
> > 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.
What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected=20
networks? Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly=20
from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or=20
more?
