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

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 17:58:00 CST 2011


On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra at wpi.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected
> networks?  Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly
> from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or
> more?
>

You might be asking the wrong person for advice or reasoning.

Horses for courses.  ULAs have a place.

Cameron




More information about the NANOG mailing list