Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 2/1/2011 3:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 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.
> If the world wants ULA to become the de facto GUA, no amount of arm twisting and bulling will stop it.
Right... It's a toxic chemical. No matter how much we may end up wishing we could, we probably can't
uninvent it at this point. Regardless, I won't encourage and will actively discourage its use.

> There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities 
> of IPv6. I fully expect to see protocols and networks within homes which will take full advantage of ULA. I also 
> expect to see hosts which don't talk to the public internet directly and never need a GUA.
I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet.


Owen