using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
dotis at mail-abuse.org
Thu Jan 26 11:07:14 CST 2012
On 1/26/12 7:35 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> 1. You don't want to disclose what addresses you are using on your
> internal network, including to the rir
> 2. You require or desire an address plan that your rir may consider
> 3. You don't want to talk to an rir for a variety of personal or
> business process reasons
> 4. When troubleshooting both with network engineers familiar with
> the network as well as tac engineers, seeing the network for the
> first time, ula sticks out like a sore thumb and can lead to some
> meaningful and clarifying discussions about the devices and flows.
> 5. Routes and packets leak. Filtering at the perimeter? Which
> perimeter? Mistakes happen. Ula provides a reasonable assumption that
> the ISP will not route the leaked packets. It is one of many possible
> layers of security and fail-safes.
For a reference to something taking advantage of ULAs per RFC4193 See:
More information about the NANOG