[148975] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chuck Anderson)
Thu Jan 26 20:59:29 2012
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:58:42 -0500
From: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <596B74B410EE6B4CA8A30C3AF1A155EA09C93B66@RWC-MBX1.corp.seven.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 07:53:18PM +0000, George Bonser wrote:
> > Even if you don't see an advantage to GUA, can you point to a
> > disadvantage?
>
> Just a matter of convenience. If you have a lot of management IPs or some other IP addresses that are never going to need internet access (an array of 10,000 sensors or something) you don't need to dip into your global allocation to address them. If it is routed within the organization but never goes to the Internet, ULA is ok. If it doesn't get routed at all, link local will do fine. It's good to keep in mind that more things than computers with web browsers are going to get an IP address.
Link-local won't do fine in many cases due to poor application
compatibilty with address scopes.
