But anyway, ULA vs. GUA preference is mostly an academic question. In practice, you can just squat on an unused IPv6 range and avoid the precedence issue.
The deeper problem is that the solution to IPv6 problems appears to be NAT. And we're switching from IPv4 to avoid NAT. And you'll need a stateful firewall for IPv6 anyway (it's a recommendation for SOHO, there's an RFC for it, too lazy to dig it up now).
I'm stubborn, so my house now has its own ASN, a PI block, and a DIA connection to two ISPs. Which is the only NAT-less way to achieve my goal.
> One of the other comments around here about not providing a “migration plan” does have a lot of truth to it. If, 30 years ago, they envisioned 464XLAT and made it part of the default features a v6 capable router should have, I bet v4 would be long dead (or nearly there) by now.
464XLAT (and its evil twin IPv6 RD) were envisioned in the early 2000-s. Along with about 20 various "migration plans". They all missed the point, though. Some people are still missing it.
The key to migration has never been some form of tunneling. The key to migration is making IPv4 and IPv6 coexist side-by-side, in other words, the Happy Eyeballs algorithm. It should have been reified to the TCP level in the late 90-s. So that applications could just do: `connect("somehost.com", 80)` and transparently get either an IPv4 or IPv6 connection, depending on whichever one works better locally. Other operational headaches like the ULA priority would have surfaced much earlier then.