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

[Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011 () gmail com>]

Disconnected networks have a bothersome tendency to get connected at
some point ( I have been severely bitten by this in the past ), so
while I agree that there is no need to coordinate anything globally,
then a RFC 1918-like definition would be nice (if we are not going to
use ULAs, that is)

cheers!

Carlos

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> 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



-- 
--
=========================
Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
http://www.labs.lacnic.net
=========================