nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 09:08:43 -0800
On Mar 2, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Nicholas Warren <nwarren () barryelectric com> wrote: Please don't take away ULA.You really think that doing ULA according to the RFCs (collision avoidance algorithm and all) is easier than filling out a form at HE? REALLY?Yes.It's hard enough to sell ipv6 for LAN without adding having to get a tunnel, register with a RIR, whatever else. ULA gives us the option to spin up ipv6 networks without anyone else being involved. We have to be able to make private networks without contacting anyone, and we will go back to ipv4 if that's our only option.
I doubt anyone is taking it away, pointless and useless as it is. Owen
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Nicholas Warren (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Matt Harris (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Matthew Kaufman (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Matt Harris (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Bryan Holloway (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Matt Harris (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Matthew Kaufman (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Matt Harris (Mar 02)
- Re: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses Owen DeLong (Mar 02)