[154800] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (-Hammer-)
Fri Jul 13 11:47:29 2012
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:45:57 -0500
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
To: trejrco@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CALOgxGbPFB6t55dUc1zOA1HtXmz9UyDMpzm3rrZgs20w9rz_rg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I think they would. I'm just a bit too new to this. Thanks.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 7/13/2012 10:05 AM, TJ wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM, -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com
> <mailto:bhmccie@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> OK. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get some flak for this but I'll
> share this question and it's background anyway. Please be gentle.
>
> In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or "non-routable"
> space Internally in production for segments that won't be seen
> anywhere else. Examples? A sync VLAN for some FWs to share state.
> An IBGP link between routers that will never be seen or
> advertised. In those cases, we have often used 192.0.2.0/24
> <http://192.0.2.0/24>. It's reserved and never used and even if it
> did get used one day we aren't "routing" it internally. It's just
> on segments where we need some L3 that will never be seen.
>
> On to IPv6
>
> I was considering taking the same approach. Maybe using 0100::/8
> or 1000::/4 or A000::/3 as a space for this.
>
>
>
> Would using "just" Link Locals not be sufficient?
> /(Failing that, as others noted, ULAs are the next "right" answer ... )/
> /
> /
> /TJ
