[atlas] [ipv6-wg] What to do with RIPE Atlas probes that have only a ULA as IPv6 address?

Hi,

> On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:26, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Jen Linkova <furry13 at 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