|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <5002C5F5.4040505@emanon.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:02:22 -0700 From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> To: swm@emanon.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Jul 15, 2012 9:30 AM, "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > Yep. That's what we do, permit 2000::/3, with a deny statement for the documentation range and small prefixes. CB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |