On 28/May/16 20:40, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> As I wrote, I only got a /112 form my ISP. This still exceeds the amount
> of addresses that I need but I decided to go for ULAs for flexibility.
>
> Anyway, it's working. :-)
I'd suggest going back to your ISP and asking for at least a
On 28/May/16 08:38, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> Thanks for repeating that. That's how I understood it as a novice too.
> :-) And that's why I thought I should not go for them. Because I don't
> have many GUAs available, I thought I should go for ULAs then.
Why don't you have GUA IPv6
On 27/May/16 21:02, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> This is fine, but why not use link-local for the VPN links? That's the
> primary reason for them.
That's really not good advice.
I'd caution against using link-local addresses for any type of service.
Link-local addresses are used for host-to-host co
On 27/May/16 21:30, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> Is it? I didn't know that I can use link-local addresses for the VPN
> too. How do I decide between link-local or unique-local addresses for
> the VPN? What do I make the decision dependent on?
Don't do it!
For any service, use GUA's. A
On 27/May/16 06:11, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> There are a lot of excellent reasons to avoid ULAs. There are a very few
> good, or even so-so reasons to use them. The most commonly cited reason is
> security which is almost always wrong. In almost 20 years of working with
> IPv6 I have yet to see any
On 26/May/16 21:36, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> Here lies the first problem. It seems that it's not legitimate to assign
> /96 subnets when using unique local addresses (ULAs). I was right
> getting some /48 subnet for my local IPv6 network; some easy way to get
> one generated randoml
