Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 28/05/2014 15:11, Randy Bush wrote:
>> The nature of ULAs makes it easier to talk them out of NAT, though,
>> which is absolutely not the case for RFC 1918 addresses. (If we say
>> anything about NATs in this draft, it should be to say that since
>> ULAs are guaranteed* not to clash, and can co-exist with routeable
>> GUAs, NAT is always unnecessary.)
>>
>> *i.e., guaranteed to very high probability if correctly generated.
> 
> can we return to the real world?  you have seen the distribution of
> the ULAs that were leaked.  wanna guess at the ones that were not
> leaked?
> 
> do not design specs that work only when standing on your left foot
> and holding your right ear.  design them to work when chaos reigns
> and the rack and stack folk are working at three in the morning.

I understand the problem. Users are idiots, including us when we
act as users. I am not arguing that ULAs will prevent all operational
problems caused by private addressing. I am only arguing that there will
be private addressing and that ULAs will cause fewer problems than
RFC1918-for-IPv6 would.

    Brian