using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

Douglas Otis 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
>  wasteful.
>
>  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.
>
>  Cb
Dear Cameron,

For a reference to something taking advantage of ULAs per RFC4193 See:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6281#page-11

Regards,
Doug Otis





More information about the NANOG mailing list