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

[Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>]

On 10/21/2010 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> > On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > > To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
> > > both ULA and global addressing in your network.
> > Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses from provider #1 and PA addresses from 
> > provider #2 in your network.
> Or PI addresses from an RIR.
One set of PI addresses and BGP multihoming shouldn't be necessary (but 
is). The remaining parts of the protocol stack should (but don't) work 
just fine if you have two sets of PA addresses. They also should (but 
don't) work just fine if you have one GUA and one ULA, for many of the 
same reasons. (There are subtle differences that make this case slightly 
better in some ways, slightly worse in others)
> > Only nobody wants to do that either.
> There are lots of good reasons not to want to do that.
Agreed. That was my point here, and above.

Matthew Kaufman