nanog mailing list archives
Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?
From: Tim Chown <tjc () ecs soton ac uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:05:05 +0000
Thanks for the comments Ray, a couple of comments in-line. On 26 Jan 2012, at 12:43, Ray Soucy wrote:
Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or GUA. Also note that we already have the link local scope for traffic between hosts on the same link (which is all hosts in a typical home network); ULA only becomes useful if routing is involved which is not the typical deployment for the home.
The assumption in homenet is that it will become so.
ULA is useful, on the other hand, if NPT is used. NPT is not NAT, and doesn't have any of the nastiness of NAT.
Well, you still have address rewriting, but prefix-based.
I think a lot of the question has to do with what the role of CPE will be going forward. As long as we're talking dual-stack, having operational consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 makes sense. If it's an IPv6-only environment, then things become a lot more flexible (do we even need CPE to include a firewall, or do we say host-based firewalls are sufficient, for example).
The initial assumption in homenet is a stateful firewall with hosts inside the homenet using PCP or something similar. Tim
Current thread:
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?, (continued)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Justin M. Streiner (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Ray Soucy (Jan 25)
- Message not available
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Tim Chown (Jan 26)
- RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? George Bonser (Jan 26)
- Message not available
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Tim Chown (Jan 26)
- RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? George Bonser (Jan 26)
- RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? George Bonser (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Mark Tinka (Jan 27)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Ray Soucy (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Jeroen Massar (Jan 26)
- Message not available
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Tim Chown (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Ray Soucy (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Message not available
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Tim Chown (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 26)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Justin M. Streiner (Jan 25)
- Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices? Robert E. Seastrom (Jan 31)
- "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) Jeroen Massar (Jan 25)
- Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) William Herrin (Jan 25)
- Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) Jeroen Massar (Jan 25)
- Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?) William Herrin (Jan 25)