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

[George Herbert <george.herbert () gmail com>]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
<carlosm3011 () gmail com> wrote:
> Disconnected networks have a bothersome tendency to get connected at
> some point ( I have been severely bitten by this in the past ), so
> while I agree that there is no need to coordinate anything globally,
> then a RFC 1918-like definition would be nice (if we are not going to
> use ULAs, that is)


If possible, I would argue to go further than that.

Every couple of years, interconnecting organizations that used 1918
space on the back end and later turned out to need to talk to each
other *and had 1918 usage conflicts* has been part of my painful
world.

1918 defined both a useful private range and a space anyone could
expand into if standard v4 allocations weren't enough and you weren't
trying to directly route those systems.  A lot of people used "useful
private range" as a cover for "expanding into".

Push people to get proper public assigned v6 allocations for private
use going forwards.  Many of them will need to interconnect them
later.  We know better now, and we won't exhaust anything doing so.
Globally allocated != globally routed.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert () gmail com