Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

Tue Feb 1 23:14:57 UTC 2011

On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 2/1/2011 3:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Given the vast probability for abuse of ULA becoming de facto GUA later, I don't support ULA existing as the benefits are vastly overwhelmed by the potential for abouse.
> If the world wants ULA to become the de facto GUA, no amount of arm twisting and bulling will stop it.
> 
Right... It's a toxic chemical. No matter how much we may end up wishing we could, we probably can't
uninvent it at this point. Regardless, I won't encourage and will actively discourage its use.

> There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I fully expect to see protocols and networks within homes which will take full advantage of ULA. I also expect to see hosts which don't talk to the public internet directly and never need a GUA.
> 
I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet.

Owen