Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses

[Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>]

On 10/20/2010 9:30 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
> Someone insisted to me yesterday the RFC1918-like address space was 
> the only way to provide a 'friendly' place for people to start their 
> journey in playing with IPv6. I think that the idea of real routable 
> IPs on a lab network daunts many people.
I once worked at a place that really *really* didn't want "real routable 
IPs" on their giant disk-protocols-over-IP network and wanted to start 
playing with IPv6 in those labs. What they wanted address space they 
knew no other company they ever merged with might be using, but which 
also would never, ever be on the public IPv6 Internet. At the time, 
there was no solution but to misuse ULA space. They're probably still 
doing just that.
> I've been down the road with ULA a few years back and I have to agree 
> with Owen - rather just do it on GUA.
>
> I was adding IPv6 to a fairly large experimental network and started 
> using ULA. The local NREN then invited me to peer with them but I 
> couldn't announce my ULA to them. They are running a 'public Internet' 
> network and have a backbone that will just filter them.
>
> I think that the biggest thing that trips people up is that they think 
> that they'll just fix-it-with-NAT to get onto the GUA Internet. 
> Getting your own GUA from an RIR isn't tough - rather just do it.
It isn't tough, but it isn't free either. I have an experimental network 
that I'd love to run IPv6 with my own GUAs on (for the aforementioned 
sorts of reasons, like what happens when you want to interconnect with 
others), but it wouldn't be connected (for quite some time) to the 
public IPv6 Internet and there are *zero* funds available for the fees 
for PI space. It just isn't like 1992 (or even 1994) was for IPv4.

Matthew Kaufman