|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:46:52 +0200 From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> To: Mitchell Warden <wardenm@wardenm.net> In-Reply-To: <20100831062203.be89ed60@mail.wardenm.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 2010-08-31 08:22, Mitchell Warden wrote: [..] > Is there a reason not to advertise more specific prefixes from 2002::/16 to ensure that traffic for your v4 routes comes back to your own 6to4 router? > > If for example all my users have v4 addresses in 192.0.2.0/24, I could advertise 2002:C002:0000::/40 instead of or in addition to the full 2002::/16. The RFC forbids that with a good reason, as then we'll end up importing the IPv4 BGP table into IPv6... not something we want to see (unless one loves to import 300k routes in there, I guess people will really start whining about that though ;). Greets, Jeroen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |