[137636] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Thu Feb 17 15:34:37 2011
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:51:28 CDT."
<32ECC9CD-D927-4407-914C-751316C59966@istaff.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:34:23 +1100
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <32ECC9CD-D927-4407-914C-751316C59966@istaff.org>, John Curran write
s:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> >> 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> >> 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> >
> > Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> > packet like this.
>
> So, it won't work for you. Is there any reason that it shouldn't
> be defined as unicast or private use (with warnings) rather than
> "Future Use", so that those who might have a use for it can do so?
>
> /John
Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it? In many cases
it is a minimal change. I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
but it can't hurt to ask the vendors if it is technically possible.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
