RE: IPv6 routing /48s

From: TJ (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2008 - 17:33:48 EST

  • Next message: Christopher Morrow: "Re: IPv6 routing /48s"

    Yes, always worth reminding people:
            2000::/3 is the currently active "Global Unicast" pool ... and that
    doesn't mean native IPv6

            (2002::/16 = 6to4, 2001::/32 = Teredo ... ISATAP may be in play, and
    not discretely indicated in prefix side of address
                    ... and non-auto tunnels cold be mentioned here as well,
    using global-scope prefixes )

    Back to the topic at hand, and in the subject line, global routing of
    arbitrary /48s is far from guaranteed.
            /32 is the default cutoff (routing for /35s probably pretty
    reliable as well)
            Up to /48s for Critical Infra / Micro-Allocations and PI-designated
    ... anything else AFAIK is quite possibly troublesome today.


    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Michael Sinatra [mailto:]
    >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:16 PM
    >To: Jack Bates
    >Cc: nanog list
    >Subject: Re: IPv6 routing /48s
    >On 11/19/08 14:05, Jack Bates wrote:
    >> Nathan Ward wrote:
    >>> The problem here is XPSP2/Vista assuming that non-RFC1918 =
    >>> unfiltered/unNATed for the purposes of 6to4.
    >>> Well, deeper problem is that they're using 6to4 on an end host I
    >>> suppose - it's supposed to be used on routers.
    >> While I don't doubt that the 6to4 is broken in such circumstances, how
    >> many IPv6 content providers are using 6to4 addressing and not 2001::
    >> addressing?
    >[other references to 2001:: addressing snipped]
    >I hope I am not being toooo picky here, and I realize this is not part of
    >your main point...
    >If your reference to 2001:: addressing simply means "non-tunneled, globally
    >routable IPv6 addressing," then I suppose it is okay. But please note that
    >there is now a lot of native (non-tunneled), globally routable IPv6
    >addressing that is outside of 2001::/16. ARIN, for example, is allocating
    >blocks out of 2607::/16 and there are quite a large number of prefixes
    >elsewhere in the designated globally-routable
    >2000::/3 that are *not* 6to4 addresses.
    >The reason I bring this up is that I have already seen certain
    >such as one for registering AAAA records for DNS servers in a certain TLD,
    >that don't allow anything other than 2001::/16.
    >(Fortunately that application was fixed quickly when those responsible were
    >notified.) Just making sure others aren't careening toward making the same

  • Next message: Christopher Morrow: "Re: IPv6 routing /48s"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD