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

["Jamie Bowden" <jamie () photon com>]

Our classified networks aren't ever going to be connected to anything
but themselves either, and they need sane local addressing.  Some of
them are a single room with a few machines, some of them are entire
facilities with hundreds of machines, but none of them are going to be
talking to a router or anything upstream, as neither of those exist on
said networks.

Jamie

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Anderson [mailto:cra () WPI EDU] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:39 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > 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.

What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected 
networks?  Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly 
from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or 
more?