> On 2 Mar 2018, at 9:28 am, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Mar 1, 2018, at 1:20 PM, Harald Koch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 1 March 2018 at 15:18, Owen DeLong <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Second, RFC-1918 doesn’t apply to IPv6 at all, and (fortunately) hardly >> anyone >> uses ULA (the IPv6 analogue to RFC-1918). >> >> Wait. What's the objection to ULA? Is it just that NAT is bad, or is there >> something new? > > No particular objection, but I don’t see the point. > > What can you do with ULA that GUA isn’t suitable for? > > Owen
ULA provide stable internal addresses which survive changing ISP for the average home user. Now, I know you can do the same thing by going to a RIR and getting a prefix but the RIR’s aren’t setup to supply prefixes like that to 10 billion of us. They are also in a specific range which makes setting filtering rules easier for everyone else. Now I would love it if we could support 100 billion routes in the DFZ but we aren’t anywhere near being able to do that which would be a requirement for abandoning ULA. Until them they have there place. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
