[154901] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker (fred))
Mon Jul 16 15:07:32 2012
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "<trejrco@gmail.com>" <trejrco@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:06:45 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CALOgxGbPFB6t55dUc1zOA1HtXmz9UyDMpzm3rrZgs20w9rz_rg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 13, 2012, at 8:05 AM, TJ wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM, -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> OK. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get some flak for this but I'll share this
>> question and it's background anyway. Please be gentle.
>>=20
>> In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or "non-routable" space
>> Internally in production for segments that won't be seen anywhere else.
>> Examples? A sync VLAN for some FWs to share state. An IBGP link between
>> routers that will never be seen or advertised. In those cases, we have
>> often used 192.0.2.0/24. It's reserved and never used and even if it did
>> get used one day we aren't "routing" it internally. It's just on segment=
s
>> where we need some L3 that will never be seen.
>>=20
>> On to IPv6
>>=20
>> I was considering taking the same approach. Maybe using 0100::/8 or
>> 1000::/4 or A000::/3 as a space for this.
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> Would using "just" Link Locals not be sufficient?
If they're on the same link, of course. My understanding of the question sa=
id "they're not on the same link".
> *(Failing that, as others noted, ULAs are the next "right" answer ... )*
> *
> *
> /TJ
