Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Mar 2, 2018, at 3:50 AM, sthaug () 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…

Truth.

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 () nethelp no <mailto:sthaug () nethelp no>

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

Owen