On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > Is anyone using ULA (RFC 4193) address space for v6 infrastructure that does > not need to be exposed to the outside world? I understand the concept of > having fc00::/8 being doled out by the RIRs never went anywhere, and using > space out of fd00::/8 can be a bit of a crap-shoot because of the likelihood > of many organizations that do so not following the algorithm for picking a > /48 that is outlined in the RFC. > > There would appear to be reasonable arguments for and against using ULA. I'm > just curious about what people are doing in practice.
Our site would be in the against ULA camp. For that matter we had survived until very recently in the anti-1918 camp, too. So, take that as an inherent bias. We have one customer in particular with a substantial non-publicly reachable v6 deployment with globally assigned addresses. I believe there is no need to replicate the headaches of rfc1918 in the next address-family eternity. Dale
