[109402] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 routing /48s
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Sinatra)
Wed Nov 19 17:16:11 2008
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:15:55 -0800
From: Michael Sinatra <michael@rancid.berkeley.edu>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
In-Reply-To: <49248DA0.3070000@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 11/19/08 14:05, Jack Bates wrote:
> Nathan Ward wrote:
>> The problem here is XPSP2/Vista assuming that non-RFC1918 =
>> unfiltered/unNATed for the purposes of 6to4.
>> Well, deeper problem is that they're using 6to4 on an end host I
>> suppose - it's supposed to be used on routers.
>>
>
> While I don't doubt that the 6to4 is broken in such circumstances, how
> many IPv6 content providers are using 6to4 addressing and not 2001::
> addressing?
[other references to 2001:: addressing snipped]
I hope I am not being toooo picky here, and I realize this is not part
of your main point...
If your reference to 2001:: addressing simply means "non-tunneled,
globally routable IPv6 addressing," then I suppose it is okay. But
please note that there is now a lot of native (non-tunneled), globally
routable IPv6 addressing that is outside of 2001::/16. ARIN, for
example, is allocating blocks out of 2607::/16 and there are quite a
large number of prefixes elsewhere in the designated globally-routable
2000::/3 that are *not* 6to4 addresses.
The reason I bring this up is that I have already seen certain
applications, such as one for registering AAAA records for DNS servers
in a certain TLD, that don't allow anything other than 2001::/16.
(Fortunately that application was fixed quickly when those responsible
were notified.) Just making sure others aren't careening toward making
the same mistake.
michael
