nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:23:40 -0800
On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/1/2011 11:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:I prefer persistent GUA over ULA for that.I do too, though for simple zeroconf devices, I'd prefer ULA over link local. Given that it's not an either or situation, I fully support ULA existing. Jack
Given the vast probability for abuse of ULA becoming de facto GUA later, I don't support ULA existing as the benefits are vastly overwhelmed by the potential for abouse.
Current thread:
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Chuck Anderson (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Cameron Byrne (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Bill Stewart (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 01)