[148924] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Chown)
Thu Jan 26 09:06:05 2012
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnN2Taaoz5xvoi6_w7MPHmBOkhWgudeifT1VoB1FcnVm4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:05:05 +0000
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Thanks for the comments Ray, a couple of comments in-line.
On 26 Jan 2012, at 12:43, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or
> GUA. Also note that we already have the link local scope for traffic
> between hosts on the same link (which is all hosts in a typical home
> network); ULA only becomes useful if routing is involved which is not
> the typical deployment for the home.
The assumption in homenet is that it will become so.
> ULA is useful, on the other hand, if NPT is used. NPT is not NAT, and
> doesn't have any of the nastiness of NAT.
Well, you still have address rewriting, but prefix-based.
> I think a lot of the question has to do with what the role of CPE will
> be going forward. As long as we're talking dual-stack, having
> operational consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 makes sense. If it's an
> IPv6-only environment, then things become a lot more flexible (do we
> even need CPE to include a firewall, or do we say host-based firewalls
> are sufficient, for example).
The initial assumption in homenet is a stateful firewall with hosts =
inside the homenet using PCP or something similar.
Tim=
