[131343] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Why_ULA=3A_low_collision_chance_=28Was=3A_IPv6_fc00=3A=3A=2F?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Oct 22 08:25:39 2010
In-Reply-To: <4CC11F05.50109@bogus.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:25:10 -0400
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Announce your gua and then blackhole it and monitor your prefix.
>>>> you can tell if you're leaking. it's generally pretty hard to
>>>> tell if you're leaking rfc 1918 since your advertisement may well
>>>> work depending on the filters of your peers but not very far.
>>>
>>> This is always the argument I hear from corporate customers
>>> concerning wanting NAT. If =A0mistake is made, the RFC 1918 space
>>> isn't routable. They often desire the same out of v6 for that
>>> reason alone.
>
> the rfc 1918 space is being routed inside almost all your adjacent
> networks, so if their ingress filtering is working as expected, great,
> but you're only a filter away from leaking.
A filter away from leaking to -one- of the millions of entities on the
internet. Two filters away from leaking to two.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com=A0 bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
