nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:40:35 -0700
On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:25 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com> wrote:On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Jack Bates wrote:On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:Announce your gua and then blackhole it and monitor your prefix. you can tell if you're leaking. it's generally pretty hard to tell if you're leaking rfc 1918 since your advertisement may well work depending on the filters of your peers but not very far.This is always the argument I hear from corporate customers concerning wanting NAT. If mistake is made, the RFC 1918 space isn't routable. They often desire the same out of v6 for that reason alone.the rfc 1918 space is being routed inside almost all your adjacent networks, so if their ingress filtering is working as expected, great, but you're only a filter away from leaking.A filter away from leaking to -one- of the millions of entities on the internet. Two filters away from leaking to two.
This underestimates the transitive property of leakage. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses), (continued)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Ray Soucy (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) William Herrin (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Joel Jaeggli (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Jack Bates (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Joe Hamelin (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Jack Bates (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Joel Jaeggli (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) William Herrin (Oct 22)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 22)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Ray Soucy (Oct 22)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) William Herrin (Oct 22)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 23)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Jack Bates (Oct 23)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) William Herrin (Oct 23)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) William Herrin (Oct 21)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Ray Soucy (Oct 21)