On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:30:32PM -0500, Harald Koch wrote:
> On 1 March 2018 at 18:48, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote:
> > ULA provide stable internal addresses which survive changing ISP
> > for the average home user.
> Yeah this is pretty much what I'm doing. ULA for stable, internal addresses
> that I can put into the (internal) DNS: ISP prefixes for global routing.
> Renumbering is hard.
as is proper (source|destination) address selection in a sufficiently complex
for interest: for a system which must be both globally and internally
reachable, which address do you put into which DNS?
> All of the objections I've seen to ULA are actually objections to (IPv6)
> NAT, which is why I was confused.
the main objection against ULAs is avoidance of complexity in environments
where at least some systems need global reach(ability), which applies to pretty
much all environments nowadays.
> (As it turns out my ISP prefix has been static for years, but I'm too lazy
> to undo all of the work...)
ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de
Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902
Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Matthias Luft, Enno Rey
Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de