nanog mailing list archives
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
From: Grzegorz Janoszka <Grzegorz () Janoszka pl>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:38:46 +0200
On 2012-07-15 00:45, Tony Hain wrote:
There is no difference in the local filtering function, but *IF* all transit providers put FC00::/7 in bogon space and filter it at every border, there is a clear benefit when someone fat-fingers the config script and announces what should be a locally filtered prefix (don't we routinely see unintended announcements in the global BGP table). I realize that is a big IF, but
There was also in the past fec0::/10. For BGP updates you should be safe to filter out FC00::/6. -- Grzegorz Janoszka
Current thread:
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space, (continued)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Jimmy Hess (Jul 16)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space -Hammer- (Jul 17)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Saku Ytti (Jul 17)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space -Hammer- (Jul 17)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Doug Barton (Jul 17)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Ray Soucy (Jul 17)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space valdis . kletnieks (Jul 14)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Randy Bush (Jul 14)
- RE: using "reserved" IPv6 space Tony Hain (Jul 14)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Randy Bush (Jul 14)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Grzegorz Janoszka (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Scott Morris (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Cameron Byrne (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Grzegorz Janoszka (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Mike Jones (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Owen DeLong (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Scott Morris (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Jimmy Hess (Jul 14)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space valdis . kletnieks (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Adrian Bool (Jul 13)