Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > > There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work 
> > > around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I 
> > > fully expect to see protocols and networks within homes which will 
> > > take full advantage of ULA. I also expect to see hosts which don't 
> > > talk to the public internet directly and never need a GUA.
> > I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet.
>
> What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected 
> networks?  Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly 
> from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or 
> more?

For a completely disconnected network, I don't care what you do,
use whatever number you want. There's no need to coordinate that
with the internet in any way.

For a network connected to a connected network, either get GUA from
an RIR or get GUA from the network you are connected to or get
GUA from some other ISP/LIR.

There are lots of options.

I'd like to see RIR issued GUA get a lot cheaper. I'd much rather see
cheap easy to get RIR issued GUA than see ULA get widespread use.

Owen