[ipv6-wg] Looking for a secon opinion on using ULA along with GUA for residential access
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Happy Eyeballs reporting
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Looking for a secon opinion on using ULA along with GUA for residential access
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Tue Oct 31 12:00:03 CET 2017
Hello, During the evaluation of a new model of CPE for our residential access we found one of the suppliers providing an option to announce a ULA prefix in addition to the GUA prefix obtained from DHCP-PD. I would like some second opinions regarding auch a practice. >From my point of view, if ULA is enabled: - it allows the client's LAN to stay IPv6-enabled even when the internet connection is down. It is a simpler version compared to the use of link-locals. - if the "auto" version of the setting is used, the ULA prefix will risk changing when changing the CPE, which is less than optimal. If ULA is disabled: - business as usual; when internet is down the client will only have RFC1918 (v4) + link-local (v6) So, is it worth enabling an additional ULA on the LAN ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Happy Eyeballs reporting
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Looking for a secon opinion on using ULA along with GUA for residential access
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]