Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 2 19:07:03 CST 2011
Disconnected networks have a bothersome tendency to get connected at
some point ( I have been severely bitten by this in the past ), so
while I agree that there is no need to coordinate anything globally,
then a RFC 1918-like definition would be nice (if we are not going to
use ULAs, that is)
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Chuck Anderson 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
> For a completely disconnected network, I don't care what you do,
> use whatever number you want. There's no need to coordinate that
> with the internet in any way.
> For a network connected to a connected network, either get GUA from
> an RIR or get GUA from the network you are connected to or get
> GUA from some other ISP/LIR.
> There are lots of options.
> I'd like to see RIR issued GUA get a lot cheaper. I'd much rather see
> cheap easy to get RIR issued GUA than see ULA get widespread use.
Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
More information about the NANOG