On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Graham Beneke wrote: > On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: >>> Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes >>> this is used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better choice? >>> >> IMHO, no. There's no disadvantage to using GUA and I personally don't think >> ULA really serves a purpose. If you want to later connect this >> LAN to the internet or something that connects to something that connects to >> something that connects to the internet or whatever, GUA provides >> the following advantages: >> + Guaranteed uniqueness (not just statistically probable >> uniqueness) >> + You can route it if you later desire to >> >> Since ULA offers no real advantages, I don't really see the point. > > 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. > They should get less daunted. You can always put a firewall with a deny all policy or an air-gap in front of it if you don't want to talk to the internet.
> 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. > Thanks. > 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. > Uh huh. Now, imagine if, instead of a small experimental deployment, you had a fortune 500 enterprise and instead of an NREN it was an ISP for whom you were a major customer... Any bets on which side of that equation gets the policy change? > 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. > I completely agree. Owen
