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
