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

Owen DeLong owend at he.net
Wed Mar 21 20:48:30 CET 2012

On Mar 21, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:52:20PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Apple could easily have obtained an IPv6 GUA prefix for this purpose. The use of ULA is entirely optional.
>> Free your mind from the IPv4 private vs. public address mindset and allow yourself to consider a world where
>> GUA is relatively easy to obtain and can be used for non-connected purposes without penalty or difficulty.
> "GUAs distributed with the intention of not having them routable world-wide"
> is different from ULAs in exactly which way?

Who said anything about intent on distribution. The intent on distribution is to uniquely number networks and hosts. Whether those networks and hosts are immediately connected, connected at some future time, or never connected becomes entirely the purview of the operator and irrelevant to the issuing agency.

That's the difference... GUAs provide maximum flexibility to the operator.

>> I realize that this would require some RIR policy changes and I support those. If the IETF will get on board
>> with recognizing that local GUA is a better alternative than ULA, then I don't think it would be hard to get
>> the RIRs to adopt appropriate policy around this.
> ULA-C would be that, but the IETF seems to have abandoned that idea.

Right... ULA-C wouldn't be that. ULA-C would be creating a new artificial PI that was not subject to RIR policies and guidelines and would, therefore have been a disaster. Abandoning it was a really good thing. ULA-R is bad enough.


More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list