[154884] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Sun Jul 15 18:21:59 2012
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:21:09 -0400
From: Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5002E89C.1040801@Janoszka.pl>
Reply-To: swm@emanon.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 7/15/12 11:58 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> 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?
>
hehehhe.. Long enough for us to forget what prefix lists we put on to
begin with and need to look them back up!
