Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <CAEaZiRXU7DH9O9EwdjFiEMgDU7dt4v62W5+9+CTJ2-rqznP7Bg () mail gmail com>, Pshem Kowalczyk writes:
> With NAT I have a single entry/exit point to those infrastructure subnets
> which can be easily policed.
> If I give them public IPs then they're routable and potentially can reach
> the internet via devices that don't police the traffic.

If you wish to believe that, believe that, but it is only wishful
thinking.

> My real question is does anyone bother with the fc00::/7 addressing
or do > you use your public space (and police that)?

ULA is normally used in parallel with public addressing if it is
used.  IPv6 was designed to be deployed with multiple address and
prefixes per interface.  When ULA is deployed you have ULA <-> ULA,
non-ULA <-> non-ULA.  Non-privacy addresses for server functionality,
privacy addresses for client functionality.

Mark

> kind regards
> Pshem
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org