[131401] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Why_ULA=3A_low_collision_chance?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Sat Oct 23 09:54:56 2010
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:54:35 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4D073B8A-E29A-430E-8CA4-0FBE19D9A054@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/23/2010 2:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> However, deliberate routing of ULA will start small and slowly spread
> over time like a slow-growing cancer. You won't even really detect it
> until it has metastasized to such an extent that nothing can be done
> about it.
Which is why all v6 templates really need to get this in as a
discard/filter/etc, just as we do with RFC-1918. I'm not saying it is
perfect, but based on how much bogon lists have hurt legitimate traffic,
we know the templates are at least used.
Jack
