[ipv6hackers] Dynamic prefixes & privacy (was: IPv6 prefix changing)

Owen DeLong owend at he.net
Sat Mar 17 23:55:59 CET 2012

On Mar 17, 2012, at 11:08 AM, S.P.Zeidler wrote:

> Thus wrote Owen DeLong (owend at he.net):
>> I would like to deprecate ULA altogether as an unnecessary and poorly conceived waste of address space. (Not that I'm concerned about the use of the space nearly so much as the possibility that someone might actually deploy ULA in a myriad of harmful ways and that there aren't actually any good use cases for it that I have seen as yet).
> Use in walled gardens that majorly won't connect to the Internet but are
> comprised of multiple entities, f.e. Both the 'not generally routable'
> and 'not accidentially conflicting' are security features (or sanity
> features, since it's more a question of not spilling than of not getting
> intentionally attacked).

We can agree to disagree. Separate GUA with appropriate lack of routing and filtration (packet and routes) is every bit as sane and effective, every bit as secure, and far more versatile.

ULA brings nothing meaningful to the table.


More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list