[148978] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Thu Jan 26 22:12:53 2012
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:58:42 CDT."
<20120127015842.GH6332@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:11:33 +1100
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <20120127015842.GH6332@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>, Chuck Anderson writes:
> 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 allocatio
> n 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 d
> o 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.
Link local is a right royal pain for applications. The DNS does
not support it. It requires passing arount 150 bits of address
information instead of 128.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
