[191339] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ryan, Spencer)
Thu Sep 8 20:58:54 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Ryan, Spencer" <sryan@arbor.net>
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 00:58:49 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1473382174.4166.366.camel@biplane.com.au>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I agree with Karl.
We use the ULA space for our internal test labs. The /48's we have in use g=
et routed around internally but have no chance of leaking to the internet.
Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | sryan@arbor.net<mailto:sryan@=
arbor.net>
Arbor Networks
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
www.arbornetworks.com<http://www.arbornetworks.com/>
________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Karl Auer <kauer@biplane=
.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 8:49:34 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193
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
