> > ULA at inside and 1:1 to operator address in the edge is what I've
> > been recommending to my enterprise customers since we started to offer
> > IPv6 commercially. Fits their existing processes and protects me from
> > creating tainted unusable addresses.
> Oh, please. NAT all over again? That's another inherently very good reason
> NOT to use ULA.

You don't have to like it, but IPv6 NAT is already happening. Wishing
it would go away won't make it happen...

We're using ULA for our lab here, with the very explicit goal that the
boxes in question should *not* connect to the Internet. We're not using
IPv6 NAT, but I can certainly see the point of what Saku Ytti suggested.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Reply via email to