Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Jul 15, 2012 9:30 AM, "Scott Morris" <swm () emanon com> wrote:
> On 7/15/12 5:38 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Unless I've missed something, RFC4193 lays out FC00::/7, not the /6.  So
> while FE00::/7 may yet be unallocated, I don't think I'd set filters in
> that fashion.
>
> Reasonably, wouldn't it be more likely to permit BGP advertisements
> within the 2000::/3 range as that's the "active" space currently?
>
>
> Scott

Yep. That's what we do, permit 2000::/3, with a deny statement for the
documentation range and small prefixes.

 CB