[Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]

Matthew Palmer mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Sun Apr 25 18:32:30 CDT 2010


On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400
> Richard Barnes <richard.barnes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad
> > ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
> 
> My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about
> robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's
> internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being
> available and being assigned global address space. That's what the
> global only people are saying.
> 
> (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP
> login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got
> address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)

I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to
that one -- the link-local address.

- Matt

-- 
"You are capable, creative, competent, careful.  Prove it."
		-- Seen in a fortune cookie




More information about the NANOG mailing list