[109407] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 routing /48s
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Wed Nov 19 17:40:14 2008
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:38:27 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Michael Sinatra <michael@rancid.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4924901B.2060708@rancid.berkeley.edu>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Michael Sinatra wrote:
> 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.
>
heh, these days, lots of it is still tunneled, though through more
conventional means. But yes, I should have been more clear. Just too
used to seeing 2001::/16 and too lazy to figure out the proper
terminology (The original topic is something I've been heavily testing
lately while I figure out how closely I can get to customer edges and
how they will react).
> 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.
Agreed, and thanks for correcting my post. Would hate for others to take
my offhanded comments on addressing and use them in production apps.
Jack
