On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes this is
used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better choice?
IMHO, no. There's no disadvantage to using GUA and I personally don't think ULA
really serves a purpose. If you want to later connect this
LAN to the internet or something that connects to something that connects to
something that connects to the internet or whatever, GUA provides
the following advantages:
+ Guaranteed uniqueness (not just statistically probable
uniqueness)
+ You can route it if you later desire to
Since ULA offers no real advantages, I don't really see the point.
Someone insisted to me yesterday the RFC1918-like address space was the
only way to provide a 'friendly' place for people to start their journey
in playing with IPv6. I think that the idea of real routable IPs on a
lab network daunts many people.
I've been down the road with ULA a few years back and I have to agree
with Owen - rather just do it on GUA.
I was adding IPv6 to a fairly large experimental network and started
using ULA. The local NREN then invited me to peer with them but I
couldn't announce my ULA to them. They are running a 'public Internet'
network and have a backbone that will just filter them.
I think that the biggest thing that trips people up is that they think
that they'll just fix-it-with-NAT to get onto the GUA Internet. Getting
your own GUA from an RIR isn't tough - rather just do it.
--
Graham Beneke
