[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (was Re: New Active Exploit: memcached on port 11211 UDP & TCP being exploited for reflection attacks)
- Subject: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (was Re: New Active Exploit: memcached on port 11211 UDP & TCP being exploited for reflection attacks)
- From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:48:26 +1100
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <CA[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> On 2 Mar 2018, at 9:28 am, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2018, at 1:20 PM, Harald Koch <chk at pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 1 March 2018 at 15:18, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>> Second, RFC-1918 doesnâ??t apply to IPv6 at all, and (fortunately) hardly anyone
>> uses ULA (the IPv6 analogue to RFC-1918).
>> Wait. What's the objection to ULA? Is it just that NAT is bad, or is there something new?
> No particular objection, but I donâ??t see the point.
> What can you do with ULA that GUA isnâ??t suitable for?
ULA provide stable internal addresses which survive changing ISP
for the average home user. Now, I know you can do the same thing
by going to a RIR and getting a prefix but the RIRâ??s arenâ??t setup
to supply prefixes like that to 10 billion of us.
They are also in a specific range which makes setting filtering
rules easier for everyone else.
Now I would love it if we could support 100 billion routes in the
DFZ but we arenâ??t anywhere near being able to do that which would
be a requirement for abandoning ULA. Until them they have there
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org