nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 addressing for core network
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:06:40 -0800
On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:30 AM, David Freedman wrote:
I think the solution to all of these problems is really to use public addressing but filter access to it at your edge (yes, even ICMP TOOBIG can be filtered safely if you have designed things in a sane way)
Filtering ICMP TOOBIG is actually bad. No matter how sane your design is, you can't count on someone further down the road not having a smaller MTU (unless you're running a 1280 MTU). Owen
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Sam Stickland (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network sthaug (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 09)
- Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Owen DeLong (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 09)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 10)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network David Freedman (Feb 10)
- Re: Too bigs are sacred, was: Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 addressing for core network Owen DeLong (Feb 09)