On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:26:14 +0100
Philip Homburg <
philip.homburg@ripe.net> wrote:
> > Nothing really surprising about this. There is simply no IPv6
> > offered by the ISP, and many ISPs still do not begin to deploy IPv6
> > and only promise (if even that) for months and years.
>
> But is that a good reason for a CPE to start announcing IPv6 prefixes?
Sure, why not. Nobody is surprised when a CPE with no Internet uplinks
configured or operating still provides DHCPv4 server to the LAN, giving out
RFC-1918 IPs.
> > And imagine some future IPv6-only client device. With ULA it could
> > access local services of the user's LAN (for example files shared
> > from a NAS), if there is no need for it to access anything on the
> > Internet.
Trying to use LLs for this and lugging around
> > "%interface" everywhere is not an acceptable answer.
>
> Link local was supposed to solve the 'dentist office' problem where
> there is no router.
They really don't. Barely any (if any at all) client software supports
explicitly specifying the interface identifier along with the IP or hostname,
or does so in a consistent manner. LL IPs are not usable in any form by the
user, aside from pinging from the command line (and even then, it's bothersome
to not forget to specify the interface all the time).