Subj : ULA
To   : Michiel van der Vlist
From : Markus Reschke
Date : Thu Jul 21 2016 16:22:40

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 ;)

Regards,
Markus

--- 
 * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)

.