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

Owen DeLong owend at he.net
Tue Mar 20 22:37:39 CET 2012

On Mar 20, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Tim Chown wrote:

> On 17 Mar 2012, at 22:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> ULA brings nothing meaningful to the table.
> There is an I-D on ULA usage, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-02.  I would assume the authors would like feedback.
> Having ULA-ULA communication in a homenet is a good thing if that means internal connections are not dropped if the accompanying global prefix changes.
A better solution is to provide some internal persistence on global prefixes in the absence of external communication.

Yes, you'll still drop internal connections on a renumber event, but, that can be handled gracefully enough so as not to be of sufficient concern to merit the drawbacks of using ULA.

> In the homenet scenario, it seems some LLN vendors say they only want to use ULAs.

Herein lies the real hazard of ULA. Forcing NPT into the world is a really really really bad thing.


More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list