[148936] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Douglas Otis)
Thu Jan 26 12:07:34 2012
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:07:14 -0800
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTzJ=taP9X4i7YSfD+JPF8bmPB5Vn5T-B3oU0C3-CxAdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/26/12 7:35 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> 1. You don't want to disclose what addresses you are using on your
> internal network, including to the rir
>
> 2. You require or desire an address plan that your rir may consider
> wasteful.
>
> 3. You don't want to talk to an rir for a variety of personal or
> business process reasons
>
> 4. When troubleshooting both with network engineers familiar with
> the network as well as tac engineers, seeing the network for the
> first time, ula sticks out like a sore thumb and can lead to some
> meaningful and clarifying discussions about the devices and flows.
>
> 5. Routes and packets leak. Filtering at the perimeter? Which
> perimeter? Mistakes happen. Ula provides a reasonable assumption that
> the ISP will not route the leaked packets. It is one of many possible
> layers of security and fail-safes.
>
> Cb
Dear Cameron,
For a reference to something taking advantage of ULAs per RFC4193 See:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6281#page-11
Regards,
Doug Otis
