Hi,
On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:26, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs@stepladder-it.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> writes:
So the question to the community, should RIPE Atlas treat ULAs in the same way as RFC-1918, addresses that should be ignored unless a valid global address can be found elsewhere. Or should we keep the current approach where ULAs are treated just like other global IPv6 addresses and consider the probe host's network setup to be broken?
But wait, if a probe has RFC1918 addresses only you do not mark it as 'no v4 connectivity', right? If a probe has a address of a global scope (v4 or v6) but could not reach the outside world it means the connectivity is broken. So IMHO it makes slightly more sense to mark ULA-only probes as having broken connectivity.
just wondering: If I use RFC1918 addresses with IPv4 I might still have Internet access through a NAT gateway. If I have only ULA, then I may reasonably expect there's no NAT, so there's a fundamental difference here.
However, I personally *do* run my stuff through a firewall setup including application level gateways. So it might be argued that my ULA-only devices still have (some rather limited sort of) Internet access anyway.
It would seem this is a good platform from which to see what types of connectivity devices with ULAs have, e.g. to get a guesstimate of NPTv6 deployment. Tim