On 2010-10-21 13:33, Ray Soucy wrote: [..]
People may throw a fit at this, but as far as I'm concerned FD00::/8 will never leave the edge of our network (we null route ULA space before it can leak out, just like you would with RFC1918 space). So you can pretty much use it has you see fit. If you want to keep your ULA space short there is nothing stopping you from using something like FD00::1 as a valid address.
And then your company gets bought and you need to merge networks, that is: renumber as they picked the same prefix. There is nothing wrong with RFC1918 per se, the big problem with it is that everybody else uses the same prefix, thus when you need to merge two networks you have collisions. I at one time also though that 'merging networks' and 'renumbering' is easy, till I heard stories from folks who where doing that for really large networks, who basically told that they where introducing 7+ layers of NAT to solve that issue, as renumbering is simply not doable if you have a global organization and if you are merging things like banks, for some magic reason they want to be able to talk to eachother. That is why there is ULA: low chance of collisions if one wants to stay in the RFC1918 mindset. And if you want a guarantee of no collisions: go to your favorite RIR and get a prefix from them. Greets, Jeroen