nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 routing /48s
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:34:28 +1300
On 20/11/2008, at 10:11 AM, trejrco () gmail com wrote:
Ah yes, public-but-not-external IPv4 addresses ... I wish a stern note saying don't do that was feasible ...
What people do with their addresses is their business.The problem here is XPSP2/Vista assuming that non-RFC1918 = unfiltered/ unNATed for the purposes of 6to4. Well, deeper problem is that they're using 6to4 on an end host I suppose - it's supposed to be used on routers.
I was going to write up a qualification mechanism for it so it could detect if 6to4 was OK or not, but code is already out there on umpteen million PCs that aren't going to do their patches. I still plan to.. hopefully I'll get around to it when I feel a bit less jaded :-)
-- Nathan Ward
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Geoff Huston (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Antonio Querubin (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Paul Timmins (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Antonio Querubin (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Paul Timmins (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Christopher Morrow (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Kevin Loch (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Nathan Ward (Nov 19)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Jack Bates (Nov 19)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Michael Sinatra (Nov 19)
- RE: IPv6 routing /48s TJ (Nov 19)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Jack Bates (Nov 19)
- RE: IPv6 routing /48s TJ (Nov 19)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Christopher Morrow (Nov 19)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Jack Bates (Nov 19)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Christopher Morrow (Nov 19)