nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:42:47 -0500
On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Announce your gua and then blackhole it and monitor your prefix. you can tell if you're leaking. it's generally pretty hard to tell if you're leaking rfc 1918 since your advertisement may well work depending on the filters of your peers but not very far.
This is always the argument I hear from corporate customers concerning wanting NAT. If mistake is made, the RFC 1918 space isn't routable. They often desire the same out of v6 for that reason alone.
I personally could understand the fear of wondering if your stateful firewall is properly working and doing it's job and how a simple mistake could have disastrous effects that NAT systems usually don't have. ULA w/ NAT very well may become the norm.
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Matthew Kaufman (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses Steve Meuse (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Jen Linkova (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses William Herrin (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Ray Soucy (Oct 21)
- Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Jeroen Massar (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Ray Soucy (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) William Herrin (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Joel Jaeggli (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Jack Bates (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Joe Hamelin (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Jack Bates (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Joel Jaeggli (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) William Herrin (Oct 22)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 22)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Ray Soucy (Oct 22)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) William Herrin (Oct 22)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 23)
- Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Jeroen Massar (Oct 21)