[191338] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Auer)
Thu Sep 8 20:52:10 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2016 10:49:34 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CAEaZiRXzEU2HY7eH4F-SZ_hCXN6MFKMefkX9xvjaX9WyyEZz6A@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 23:43 +0000, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote:
> both ways - if we decide to use it we'll have to either overlay it
> with public IPv6 space (and provide the NAT/proxy for where we don't
> have any public IPv6 assigned) or simply not use the fc00::/7 and
> skip the NAT/proxy aspects of it.
There is no necessary link between ULA addresses and NAT. You don't
have to NAT ULA, *ever*. If you need public addresses, go get them.
There are enough.
IMHO one should use ULA in only three situations:
- a completely isolated network
- for internal communications e.g. fabric management)
- for testing
Regards, K.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389
GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
