Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

[Skeeve Stevens <skeeve () eintellego net>]

See RFC 3849 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3849

Which pre-scribed the range: 2001:DB8::/32  for use in Documentation.  I
suppose this could be used for lab testing.

*ducks flames*

*
*
*Skeeve Stevens, CEO - *eintellego Pty Ltd
skeeve () eintellego net ; www.eintellego.net

Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco – IBM



On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:38 AM, -Hammer- <bhmccie () gmail com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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 segments
> where we need some L3 that will never be seen.
>
> On to IPv6
>
> I was considering taking the same approach. Maybe using 0100::/8 or
> 1000::/4 or A000::/3 as a space for this.
>
> Other than the usual "Hey, you shouldn't do that" can anyone give me some
> IPv6 specific reasons that I may not be forecasting that would make it
> worse doing this than in an IPv4 scenario. I know, not apples to apples but
> for this question they are close enough. Unless there is something IPv6
> specific that is influencing this....
>
> --
>
>
> -Hammer-
>
> "I was a normal American nerd"
> -Jack Herer