Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The reference to NATv6 confuses me. There's nothing about ULA-*
that leads to NAT. Users will have PA (or PI for the lucky few) prefixes
for global connectivity. ULA-* is for local use (in the sense that RFC
4864 uses "local").
One of the arguments by the anti-ULA crowd is that if someone is unable
to also get PI space, they will NAT their ULAs to PA space rather than
assigning the PA space to hosts directly, because NAT is perceived as
less hassle than renumbering every few months.
Except with v6 you can quite easily have multiple prefixes on an
interface. So you can have your ULA prefixes for your internal services
(dns servers, smtp servers, whatever) and use your globally routable
IPv6 addresses for IPv6 connectivity.
Things get a bit more annoying if you have internet facing services
(public webservers, etc), but no more annoying than it was in the world
of NAT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
