Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

On 18-Sep-20 19:04, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>> SLAAC is only one of the victims of flash renumbering. (If there was more
>> widespread use of ULAs that might not be true.)
> [Ed: ] But How? Subscriber needs access to Global Internet.
> Is it possible to connect Google by ULA?

I'm not referring to off-site traffic. Once we see SOHO networks with
internal routing, internal traffic can run over ULAs whatever disturbance
happens in the outside world. Without ULAs, that is only possible on
a link-local basis.

I think you are persistently thinking of IPv6 as IPv4 with bigger addresses.
It's more than that.

Regards
   Brian

> Ed/
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>> Sent: 17 сентября 2020 г. 23:49
>> To: v6ops@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
>>
>> On 17-Sep-20 20:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote on 16/09/2020 23:44:
>>>> This problem is so real in deployments where operators decided to go
>>>> with non-persistent IPv6 prefix delegations that we documented it in
>>>> RIPE-690 where we suggest to deploy prefix delegations as
>>>> persistent/static as possible so networks/hosts behind CPEs don't
>>>> suffer from this issue.
>>>
>>> You mean to have the ISPs to provide persistent state so that SLAAC
>>> can handle things better?  Only half joking here :-)
>>
>> SLAAC is only one of the victims of flash renumbering. (If there was more
>> widespread use of ULAs that might not be true.)
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> .
> 