"Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?)

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Wed Jan 25 18:51:18 UTC 2012


On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:
> On 2012-01-25 18:55 , Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> [..]
>>> Locally managed means locally manage, though.  The RFC is more of
>>> a suggestion than a requirement at that point.
>>
>> Right, though it's a shame that the registry-assigned ULA concept didn't
>> take off.
>
> What everybody calls "Registered ULA" or ULA-C(entral) is what the RIRs
> already provide. Also entities that have such a strict requirement are
> perfectly served with address space the RIRs provide.

Jeroen,

Not so. The registries provide GUA, not ULA. Not everybody considers
the difference significant, but many if not most of the folks who want
to use ULA for anything at all do.


> But if you want to stick to ULA anyway and you want a bit more certainty
> that your ULA prefix does not clash, you can generate a random one as
> per the RFC and register it:
>
> https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/

My "registration" was erased from that page. Don't know when. Don't
know why. But it speaks poorly for its function as a registry.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004




More information about the NANOG mailing list