[134583] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST IPv6 document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Fri Jan 7 10:15:10 2011
In-Reply-To: <38EDE1C4-B991-45FB-8963-E7C25F9F0090@arbor.net>
From: TJ <trejrco@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 10:14:11 -0500
To: "Nanog Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: trejrco@gmail.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 09:56, Dobbins, Roland <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:30 PM, TJ wrote:
>
> > Today (IPv4) they may not, but many recommendations for tomorrow (IPv6)
> are to use discrete network allocations for your infrastructure (loopbacks
> and
> > PtP links, specifically) and to filter traffic destined to those at your
> edges ...
>
> Actually, this has been an IPv4 BCP for the last decade or so, in order to
> allow for scalable use of iACLs, CoPP, et. al.
True - but some places don't have enough IPv4 address space or willingness
to renumber, nor did some have the forethought, to accomplish this ...
/TJ
