Hi, > On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:26, Benedikt Stockebrand <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
It would seem this is a good platform from which to see what types of connectivity devices with ULAs have, e.g. to get a guesstimate of NPTv6 deployment. Tim
