On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

Technically, I think you mean NPTv6, as per RFC 6296.
It’s disappointing but not unexpected that sites are doing this.
The homenet approach is that hosts are multi-addressed with ULA and globals. They use ULAs internally, which provides a decent level of renumbering protection, and globals externally.
Having a single IP address is IPv4 thinking.

Tim, thank you for the reference, we are using something close-to-but-not RFC6296.

The reason we are not saying "RFC 6296" is that in the design that is being implemented, we do not want to claim compliance at all with a standard, but ask the client if he understands and approves of the design.

We had an issue in an earlier implementation when the Windows server team was worried that nodes with two IPv6 addresses might pollute and confuce dynamic updates in the AD DNS. No one wanted to test this, rather than delay the IPv6 rollout, we dropped global IPs in the internal network.

I am a vice-chair of the IPv6 Forum Singapore Chapter, and my focus is to roll out more and more IPv6. Numbers, Sir, not Quality!

--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane