multiple prefixes

Doug Barton dougb at
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.

> which
> 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
> communications.

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
> PI.

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 mailing list