IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (was Re: New Active Exploit: memcached on port 11211 UDP & TCP being exploited for reflection attacks)

Thu Mar 1 23:48:26 UTC 2018

> On 2 Mar 2018, at 9:28 am, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2018, at 1:20 PM, Harald Koch <chk at pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 1 March 2018 at 15:18, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>> Second, RFC-1918 doesn’t apply to IPv6 at all, and (fortunately) hardly anyone
>> uses ULA (the IPv6 analogue to RFC-1918).
>> 
>> Wait. What's the objection to ULA? Is it just that NAT is bad, or is there something new?
> 
> No particular objection, but I don’t see the point.
> 
> What can you do with ULA that GUA isn’t suitable for?
> 
> Owen

ULA provide stable internal addresses which survive changing ISP
for the average home user. Now, I know you can do the same thing
by going to a RIR and getting a prefix but the RIR’s aren’t setup
to supply prefixes like that to 10 billion of us.

They are also in a specific range which makes setting filtering
rules easier for everyone else.

Now I would love it if we could support 100 billion routes in the
DFZ but we aren’t anywhere near being able to do that which would
be a requirement for abandoning ULA.  Until them they have there
place.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org