Hi, That's why I asked the question - if anyone actually puts its as an additional IP on their interfaces to keep it simple (and in-line with IPv4 policies, address allocation schemes, etc) or not. I can see the argument both ways - if we decide to use it we'll have to either overlay it with public IPv6 space (and provide the NAT/proxy for where we don't have any public IPv6 assigned) or simply not use the fc00::/7 and skip the NAT/proxy aspects of it. So one way it's aligned with what we do already (at the cost of the overhead) the other it's not aligned (but with potentially less overhead). kind regards Pshem On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 at 11:27 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message < CAEaZiRXU7DH9O9EwdjFiEMgDU7dt4v62W5+9+CTJ2-rqznP7Bg@mail.gmail.com>, Pshem Kowalczyk writes:
With NAT I have a single entry/exit point to those infrastructure subnets which can be easily policed. If I give them public IPs then they're routable and potentially can reach the internet via devices that don't police the traffic.
If you wish to believe that, believe that, but it is only wishful thinking.
My real question is does anyone bother with the fc00::/7 addressing or do > you use your public space (and police that)?
ULA is normally used in parallel with public addressing if it is used. IPv6 was designed to be deployed with multiple address and prefixes per interface. When ULA is deployed you have ULA <-> ULA, non-ULA <-> non-ULA. Non-privacy addresses for server functionality, privacy addresses for client functionality.
Mark
kind regards Pshem -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org