On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bl...@kit.edu> wrote:
> Hi Randy, > > On 20.02.2013 12:40, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Yes, I know in practice they do leak, that's why I wrote "should". My >>> statement was a little bit imprecise - I apologize. No leakage wasn't >>> actually my point rather than internal use only. So no matter which >>> kind of addresses you employ for "internal use" only, they may >>> accidentally leak due to misconfiguration, failures etc. The advantage >>> of ULAs is though: if they leak, they are still unique with a high >>> probability, hopefully causing less harm than rfc1918 addresses. >> >> for more assurance of such wonderful properties, and no probabilities, >> you may want to check out ipv6 global address space > > Agreed, this is probably even a better choice, however, > some manufacturers do not want to pay for non-routable > IPv6 global address space and depending on the number > of manufactured automotives, they need a larger prefix. What?! A large manufacturer, selling enough vehciles that they exhaust a large prefix *doesn't want to pay*? I'm shocked… shocked I tell you… W > > Regards, > Roland > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." -- Terry Pratchett -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
