> 2. rotating temporary global addresses, Well, not disagreeing that you can have those, but why are you mentioning that specifically for "global addresses", b

> 2. rotating temporary global addresses, Well, not disagreeing that you can have those, but why are you mentioning that specifically for "global addresses", but not for ULA? > while ULAs have arbitrary prefixes (not suitable for global routing) How are ULA prefixes different from PI allocations as far as suitability for global routing is concerned? > and are not supposed to be forwarded to interfaces outside their subnet. Would you mind pointing to the normative source for this forwarding policy? > Local DNS is allowed to respond with ULAs, just not servers participating in the global authoritative DNS. Would you mind pointing to the normative source for this? > IPv6 kills NAT, so "scoped" addresses step in to fill the void and are overall a much better solution. But you said that ULA are global scope (which they are, I agree), so what does this have to do with scoped addresses? Also, which void exactly does killing NAT leave that needs filling (and that then supposedly is filled by ULA)?