nanog mailing list archives
using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:51:46 -0500 (EST)
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.
jms
Current thread:
- using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Justin M. Streiner (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Cameron Byrne (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Jay Ford (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Dale W. Carder (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Nick Hilliard (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Dave Pooser (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Justin M. Streiner (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? George Bonser (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Jima (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Nick Hilliard (Jan 25)