Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

>>
>> Stable interior only prefixes in the absensence of pi.
>>
>> Numbering of temporarily isolated networks sandboxes and so on. Link 
>> local only goes so far.
>
> True, but there’s no advantage to using ULA for this over GUA if you 
> have GUA available.
>
>

That's not necessarily true.  In past experience, we had a need to nail 
up temporary networks quickly to test functions, and getting GUA was 
going to take time (based on procedures) and ULA was available right 
away.  Given the testing was related to network impairments, having 
immediate access to addressing was beneficial. So GUA was available, but 
not in the time frame needed.

There is also an operational benefit to using ULAs for some functions 
where the hosts do not need inter-domain reachability. The security 
perimeter and related policy can be much more stable (requiring less 
changes as you add space) depending on what GUA space you have access to 
(as it may not be contiguous).  Also, from an front line ops 
perspective, there is also a very clear visual discriminator that comes 
in handy (vs. GUAs which can be hard to differentiate as to which are 
for interior-only functions vs. inter-domain functions.).

regards,

Victor K


>>
>>> Assume we agree that NAT is evil. Is there a reason uses in which an 
>>> address is excluded from inter-network usage is therefore bad?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops