[154880] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Grzegorz Janoszka)
Sun Jul 15 11:59:07 2012
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:58:20 +0200
From: Grzegorz Janoszka <Grzegorz@Janoszka.pl>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5002C5F5.4040505@emanon.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2012-07-15 15:30, Scott Morris wrote:
>> 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?
FF00::/8 are multicast, FE80::/10 are reserved for link-local. In the
past you had FEC0::/10 as a kind of private addresses.
Allowing 2000::/3 is fine as well. Btw - what are the estimates - how
long are we going to be within 2000::/3?
--
Grzegorz Janoszka
