nanog mailing list archives
"Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?)
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:08:10 +0100
On 2012-01-25 18:55 , Justin M. Streiner wrote: [..]
Locally managed means locally manage, though. The RFC is more of a suggestion than a requirement at that point.Right, though it's a shame that the registry-assigned ULA concept didn't take off.
What everybody calls "Registered ULA" or ULA-C(entral) is what the RIRs already provide. Also entities that have such a strict requirement are perfectly served with address space the RIRs provide. And from my POV unless one is deploying devices which set up ad-hoc networks, there is no real reason to use ULA at all. Just take a chunk from your RIR assigned space, firewall it off, or simply do not route it and presto, you got a globally registered unique block of address space.
From that POV the only reason one might not want RIR space is that one
has to pay a wee bit of money for the RIR space, guess what, any kind of ULA-C space with guarantees for being global unique will have that same problem. But if you want to stick to ULA anyway and you want a bit more certainty that your ULA prefix does not clash, you can generate a random one as per the RFC and register it: https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/ As long as everybody looks at that list, one will be clash free. And yes, ULA comes in chunks of /48 if you need more than that you can just register multiple disjunct ones or... what about that RIR space? Likely one site or another will start using that thing called the Internet anyway at one point. Greets, Jeroen
Current thread:
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?, (continued)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Mark Tinka (Jan 27)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Ray Soucy (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Jeroen Massar (Jan 26)
- Message not available
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Tim Chown (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Ray Soucy (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Message not available
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Tim Chown (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Robert E. Seastrom (Jan 31)
- "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) Jeroen Massar (Jan 25)
- Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) William Herrin (Jan 25)
- Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) Jeroen Massar (Jan 25)
- Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) William Herrin (Jan 25)
- Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) Jeroen Massar (Jan 25)
- Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) William Herrin (Jan 25)