Hi folks,
Jen Linkova <[email protected]> writes:
>> So the question to the community, should RIPE Atlas treat ULAs in the
>> same way as RFC-1918, addresses that should be ignored unless a valid
>> global address can be found elsewhere. Or should we keep the current
>> approach where ULAs are treated just like other global IPv6 addresses
>> and consider the probe host's network setup to be broken?
>
> But wait, if a probe has RFC1918 addresses only you do not mark it as
> 'no v4 connectivity', right?
> If a probe has a address of a global scope (v4 or v6) but could not
> reach the outside world it means the connectivity is broken. So IMHO
> it makes slightly more sense to mark ULA-only probes as having broken
> connectivity.
just wondering: If I use RFC1918 addresses with IPv4 I might still have
Internet access through a NAT gateway. If I have only ULA, then I may
reasonably expect there's no NAT, so there's a fundamental difference
here.
However, I personally *do* run my stuff through a firewall setup
including application level gateways. So it might be argued that my
ULA-only devices still have (some rather limited sort of) Internet
access anyway.
Cheers,
Benedikt
--
Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting
Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/
Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects
BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/
