Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
nanog at daork.net
Tue Feb 3 23:43:21 UTC 2009
On 4/02/2009, at 12:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> There is the ULA-Random space, but, I'm not sure if that got
> ratified or was
> rescinded. I really don't see a need for RFC-1918 in
> the IPv6 world. RFC-1918 was intended to solve a problem with a
> of address space by allowing disparate private networks to recycle
> the same
> numbers behind NAT or for use on non-connected networks. There is no
> such shortage in IPv6. I think it is wiser to number non-connected
> IPv6 networks
> from valid unique addresses since there is no shortage.
ULA is useful for organisations that cannot get an RIR allocation/
assignment, so are likely to need to re-number.
If they number on ULA *in addition to* whatever space their ISP gives
them, they do not need to alter any internal DNS, ACLs, etc. etc. if/
when they re-number. An easy example of a good use for ULA might be
the internal recursive DNS server addresses that the DHCPv6 server
If they are so inclined, they might even re-number dynamically if they
get their prefix using PD.
More information about the NANOG