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

Mark Smith nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Sun Apr 25 22:01:51 CDT 2010


On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000
Matthew Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote:

> 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.
> 

Ever tried to ping a link local address?

If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it
some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is.


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




More information about the NANOG mailing list