dougb at dougbarton.us
Mon Feb 11 18:26:21 CET 2013
On 02/11/2013 06:09 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> Except that's really bad as it goes hand in hand with NPTv6,
You're making a value judgment there, one that not everyone agrees with.
> maps between external global and internal ULA prefixes. The IPv6
> model supports use of both ULAs and globals. Hosts acquire both. Use
> ULAs for internal communications, and globals for external
That is one way to do it.
> ULA is not by design intended to be used with any for of NAT.
A) Some of us would disagree with you on the design issue.
B) NPT != NAT. Please stop spreading FUD.
> Any organisation that cares enough about renumbering
> implications of changing provider should be able to obtain/afford
The fact that this is demonstrably untrue has been demonstrated many
times. Either catch up with reality, or state your opinions as such.
More information about the ipv6-ops