[154854] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Jul 14 12:21:31 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <50019988.5080108@ceriz.fr>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:18:48 -0700
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Nicolle?= <jerome@ceriz.fr>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:08 AM, J=E9r=F4me Nicolle wrote:
> Le 13/07/12 16:38, -Hammer- a =E9crit :
>> In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or "non-routable"
>=20
> I guess "non-routable IPv4" translates well to "non-routable IPv6", =
thus
> putting Link-Local addresses on top of the list.
>=20
> Thought you may use th auto-configured addresses for that purpose, you
> also may set LLAs to your liking. I use fe80::zone_ID:interface_ID , =
and
> set such LLA to every gateways to make routing tables more legible,
> those ID beeing arbitrary 16bit values.
>=20
Given that zone_IDs in my environments consist of terms like:
fxp0
en0
eth0
ge-0/0/0.0
etc.
How, exactly, would you turn those into part of an IPv6 address?
> Any other address class will work well, but I'd rather not use =
reserved
> space outside of GUA, ULA our LLA scopes to avoid bug-hunting on =
poorly
> implemented IPv6 stacks.
+1
However, I still think GUA is the best, most flexible choice.
Owen
