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

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:53:49 +0100
Antonio Prado <aprado at topnet.it> wrote:

> On 3/25/15 5:31 PM, Philip Homburg wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> hi,
> 
> as atlas measures internet connectivity and reachability,
> as ula addresses should not be routable in internet,

RFC-1918 addresses too.

> probes with (just) ula addresses should be ignored

By that logic probes with just RFC-1918 IPs should not attempt any IPv4
measurements either.

NAT66 is not (and should not be) common, however there is no harm in doing an
inobtrusive check to see if it's deployed, or to collect stats on the scale of
such deployments.

-- 
With respect,
Roman
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-atlas/attachments/20150326/a482d067/attachment.sig>