> 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…
Truth. Just like I can’t cure AIDS just by wishing, but I’m pretty sure that without people 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. Owen