IPv6 Unique Local Addresses

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Mar 2 12:09:33 UTC 2018

> On Mar 2, 2018, at 3:50 AM, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
>>> ULA at inside and 1:1 to operator address in the edge is what I've
>>> been recommending to my enterprise customers since we started to offer
>>> IPv6 commercially. Fits their existing processes and protects me from
>>> creating tainted unusable addresses.
>> Oh, please. NAT all over again? That's another inherently very good reason
>> NOT to use ULA.
> You don't have to like it, but IPv6 NAT is already happening. Wishing
> it would go away won't make it happen…


Just like I can’t cure AIDS just by wishing, but I’m pretty sure that without people
talking about it, it wouldn’t go away either.

> We're using ULA for our lab here, with the very explicit goal that the
> boxes in question should *not* connect to the Internet. We're not using
> IPv6 NAT, but I can certainly see the point of what Saku Ytti suggested.
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no <mailto:sthaug at nethelp.no>

We can agree to disagree. It’s not even unusual at this point.


More information about the NANOG mailing list