> On Mar 2, 2018, at 3:50 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> 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…
Just like I can’t cure AIDS just by wishing, but I’m pretty sure that without
talking about it, it wouldn’t go away either.
> 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 <mailto:sth...@nethelp.no>
We can agree to disagree. It’s not even unusual at this point.