[148857] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ford)
Wed Jan 25 11:11:47 2012
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:11:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Jay Ford <jay-ford@uiowa.edu>
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1201251037480.16219@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: Jay Ford <jay-ford@uiowa.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> Is anyone using ULA (RFC 4193) address space for v6 infrastructure that does
> not need to be exposed to the outside world? I understand the concept of
> having fc00::/8 being doled out by the RIRs never went anywhere, and using
> space out of fd00::/8 can be a bit of a crap-shoot because of the likelihood
> of many organizations that do so not following the algorithm for picking a
> /48 that is outlined in the RFC.
>
> There would appear to be reasonable arguments for and against using ULA. I'm
> just curious about what people are doing in practice.
Yep. It works great for strictly local devices which don't need Internet
access.
________________________________________________________________________
Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242
email: jay-ford@uiowa.edu, phone: 319-335-5555, fax: 319-335-2951
