I guess my point is that as soon as you introduced the human element into ULA with no accountability, it became a lost cause. People can't be trusted to respect the RFC once they know it's non-routed address space, and I suspect most won't. Just like countless vendors still use 1.1.1.1 as a baked-in management address even though there was never a time when that was allowed. It was a nice idea, but as soon as you let people "choose" the "random" number, well... there you go. At least if you stay within the FD space we have a chance at using FC correctly.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Ray Soucy wrote: > >> For for all intents and purposes if you're looking for RFC1918 style >> space in IPv6 you should consider the block FD00::/8 not FC00::/7 as >> the FC00::/8 space is reserved in ULA for assignment by a central >> authority (who knows why, but with that much address space nobody >> really cares). >> >> People may throw a fit at this, but as far as I'm concerned FD00::/8 >> will never leave the edge of our network (we null route ULA space >> before it can leak out, just like you would with RFC1918 space). So >> you can pretty much use it has you see fit. If you want to keep your >> ULA space short there is nothing stopping you from using something >> like FD00::1 as a valid address. >> > I have no problem with that. My concern is that people will use FD00::/8 > space in OTHER ways, and, since it has potential uniqueness if you > follow the RFC, it has greater potential for undesired success than > RFC-1918. > >> You could embed your ASN into it or some other identifier if you want >> to avoid conflicts with other non-routed address space which should >> never enter or leave your network from the outside, but I'm just not >> seeing the practical application for this. >> > That only avoids conflicts if everyone within the networks to which > you may communicate uses the same system of uniqueness. > Think beyond today to the future possibility of M&A of other companies > also using ULA, etc. > > Owen > >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jer...@mompl.net> wrote: >>> <IPv6 newbie> >>> >>> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses an >>> fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number: >>> >>> "fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local >>> communication. They are routable only within a set of cooperating sites >>> (analogous to the private address ranges 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16 of >>> IPv4).[12] The addresses include a 40-bit pseudorandom number in the routing >>> prefix intended to minimize the risk of conflicts if sites merge or packets >>> are misrouted into the Internet. Despite the restricted, local usage of >>> these addresses, their address scope is global, i.e. they are expected to be >>> globally unique." >>> >>> I am trying to set up a local IPv6 network and am curious why all the >>> examples I come accross do not seem to use the 40-bit pseudorandom number? >>> What should I do? Use something like fd00::1234, or incorporate something >>> like the interface's MAC address into the address? It'd make the address >>> quite unreadable though. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeroen >>> >>> -- >>> http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ >>> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ray Soucy >> >> Epic Communications Specialist >> >> Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 >> >> Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System >> http://www.networkmaine.net/ > > -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/
