nanog mailing list archives
Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:46:52 +0200
On 2010-08-31 08:22, Mitchell Warden wrote: [..]
Is there a reason not to advertise more specific prefixes from 2002::/16 to ensure that traffic for your v4 routes comes back to your own 6to4 router? If for example all my users have v4 addresses in 192.0.2.0/24, I could advertise 2002:C002:0000::/40 instead of or in addition to the full 2002::/16.
The RFC forbids that with a good reason, as then we'll end up importing the IPv4 BGP table into IPv6... not something we want to see (unless one loves to import 300k routes in there, I guess people will really start whining about that though ;). Greets, Jeroen
Current thread:
- Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays, (continued)
- Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays Jeroen Massar (Aug 31)
- Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays Jack Bates (Aug 31)
- Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 31)
- Teredo and 'firewalls' (Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays) Jeroen Massar (Aug 31)
- Re: Teredo and 'firewalls' (Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays) Jack Bates (Aug 31)
- Re: Teredo and 'firewalls' (Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays) Jeroen Massar (Aug 31)
- RE: Teredo and 'firewalls' (Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays) Nathan Eisenberg (Aug 31)
- Re: Teredo and 'firewalls' (Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays) Jeroen Massar (Aug 31)
- RE: Teredo and 'firewalls' (Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays) Sean Siler (Aug 31)
- Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays Jeroen Massar (Aug 30)
- Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays Franck Martin (Aug 31)
- Re: Comcast enables 6to4 relays Mark Andrews (Aug 31)