Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt

[Jan-Frode Myklebust <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 08:16:00AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>> Le 15/02/2014 19:16, Owen DeLong a écrit :
> >>>> Indeed, the situations where ULA usage is detrimental vastly
> >>>> outnumbers those where it is actually beneficial.
> 
> That's an opinion, but it isn't an argument for abolishing
> ULAs. It's actually an argument for improving this draft so
> that it describes the cases in which ULAs are beneficial.

> Could we have a detailed conversation about whether those cases
> are correctly described in the draft?

Yes please.

My use case is that we have a set of datacenter internal services/servers
that should *never* be routed out. When not using ULA we've had a couple
of incidents where the routes did leak out and servers that shouldn't
have been available on the Internet was. So we've decided to use ULA for
the same set of servers as we previously used rfc1918-adresses for. No
NAT involved. No servers should reach Internet directly. Yes we could
achieve the same by putting proper ACLs in place on the borders, but since
we've failed to do that in the past, the belt and suspenders approach is
attractive.

Is this a "valid" ULA usage? 


  -jf