Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193
sryan at arbor.net
Fri Sep 9 00:58:49 UTC 2016
I agree with Karl.
We use the ULA space for our internal test labs. The /48's we have in use get routed around internally but have no chance of leaking to the internet.
Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | sryan at arbor.net<mailto:sryan at arbor.net>
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> on behalf of Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 8:49:34 PM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 23:43 +0000, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote:
> both ways - if we decide to use it we'll have to either overlay it
> with public IPv6 space (and provide the NAT/proxy for where we don't
> have any public IPv6 assigned) or simply not use the fc00::/7 and
> skip the NAT/proxy aspects of it.
There is no necessary link between ULA addresses and NAT. You don't
have to NAT ULA, *ever*. If you need public addresses, go get them.
There are enough.
IMHO one should use ULA in only three situations:
- a completely isolated network
- for internal communications e.g. fabric management)
- for testing
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
More information about the NANOG