Hi, On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:30:32PM -0500, Harald Koch wrote: > On 1 March 2018 at 18:48, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > ULA provide stable internal addresses which survive changing ISP > > for the average home user. > > > Yeah this is pretty much what I'm doing. ULA for stable, internal addresses > that I can put into the (internal) DNS: ISP prefixes for global routing. > Renumbering is hard.
as is proper (source|destination) address selection in a sufficiently complex environment. for interest: for a system which must be both globally and internally reachable, which address do you put into which DNS? > > All of the objections I've seen to ULA are actually objections to (IPv6) > NAT, which is why I was confused. the main objection against ULAs is avoidance of complexity in environments where at least some systems need global reach(ability), which applies to pretty much all environments nowadays. best Enno > > (As it turns out my ISP prefix has been static for years, but I'm too lazy > to undo all of the work...) > > -- > Harald -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Matthias Luft, Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================
