Our classified networks aren't ever going to be connected to anything but themselves either, and they need sane local addressing. Some of them are a single room with a few machines, some of them are entire facilities with hundreds of machines, but none of them are going to be talking to a router or anything upstream, as neither of those exist on said networks.
Jamie -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > > There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work > > around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I > > fully expect to see protocols and networks within homes which will > > take full advantage of ULA. I also expect to see hosts which don't > > talk to the public internet directly and never need a GUA. > > > I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet. What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected networks? Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or more?
