[154875] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Sun Jul 15 09:31:16 2012
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:30:29 -0400
From: Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <50028FA6.3040803@Janoszka.pl>
Reply-To: swm@emanon.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 7/15/12 5:38 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> On 2012-07-15 00:45, Tony Hain wrote:
>> There is no difference in the local filtering function, but *IF* all transit
>> providers put FC00::/7 in bogon space and filter it at every border, there
>> is a clear benefit when someone fat-fingers the config script and announces
>> what should be a locally filtered prefix (don't we routinely see unintended
>> announcements in the global BGP table). I realize that is a big IF, but
> There was also in the past fec0::/10. For BGP updates you should be safe
> to filter out FC00::/6.
>
Unless I've missed something, RFC4193 lays out FC00::/7, not the /6. So
while FE00::/7 may yet be unallocated, I don't think I'd set filters in
that fashion.
Reasonably, wouldn't it be more likely to permit BGP advertisements
within the 2000::/3 range as that's the "active" space currently?
Scott
