[148858] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dale W. Carder)
Wed Jan 25 11:16:16 2012
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:15:24 -0600
From: "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder@wisc.edu>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1201251037480.16219@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:51 AM, 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.
Our site would be in the against ULA camp. For that matter we had
survived until very recently in the anti-1918 camp, too. So, take
that as an inherent bias.
We have one customer in particular with a substantial non-publicly
reachable v6 deployment with globally assigned addresses. I believe
there is no need to replicate the headaches of rfc1918 in the next
address-family eternity.
Dale
