= Сообщение: 3288 из 7440 ============================================= IPV6 = От : Markus Reschke 2:240/1661 21 Jul 16 16:22:40 Кому : Michiel van der Vlist 21 Jul 16 16:22:40 Тема : ULA FGHI : area://IPV6?msgid=2:240/1661+578fc42d На : area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+5790b601 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: LATIN-1 ================================ Ответ: area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+579155a5 ============================================================================== Hi Michiel!
Jul 21 13:38 2016, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:
MR>> It's simply RFC1918 for IPv6 ;)
MvdV> With the difference that they can be globally unique and so cause MvdV> no conflict when merging networks.
The RFC I mentioned states some numbers for the propabilities. From the point of view of running networks I doubt that it gives any real benefit. For IPv4-VPNs we use NAT when the addresses overlap. For IPv6 it's only an issue if you got a dynamic prefix, since you need a fixed prefix for B2B VPNs. Some people still got problems with public and private IPv6 prefixes, because they're used to NAT, but it doesn't matter. NAT is a feature, not security be default. If you got a public fixed prefix, use that. No ULA required. The only benefit of ULA is, that it should be filtered at the edge/border routers. Don't place your bet on that ;)
