using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Thu Jan 26 08:05:05 CST 2012
Thanks for the comments Ray, a couple of comments in-line.
On 26 Jan 2012, at 12:43, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or
> GUA. Also note that we already have the link local scope for traffic
> between hosts on the same link (which is all hosts in a typical home
> network); ULA only becomes useful if routing is involved which is not
> the typical deployment for the home.
The assumption in homenet is that it will become so.
> ULA is useful, on the other hand, if NPT is used. NPT is not NAT, and
> doesn't have any of the nastiness of NAT.
Well, you still have address rewriting, but prefix-based.
> I think a lot of the question has to do with what the role of CPE will
> be going forward. As long as we're talking dual-stack, having
> operational consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 makes sense. If it's an
> IPv6-only environment, then things become a lot more flexible (do we
> even need CPE to include a firewall, or do we say host-based firewalls
> are sufficient, for example).
The initial assumption in homenet is a stateful firewall with hosts inside the homenet using PCP or something similar.
More information about the NANOG