Re: IPv6 routing /48s

From: Jack Bates (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2008 - 17:38:27 EST

  • Next message: Vicky Shrestha: "Re: Quagga on Xen or VMWare etc"

    Michael Sinatra wrote:
    > 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.
    >

    heh, these days, lots of it is still tunneled, though through more
    conventional means. But yes, I should have been more clear. Just too
    used to seeing 2001::/16 and too lazy to figure out the proper
    terminology (The original topic is something I've been heavily testing
    lately while I figure out how closely I can get to customer edges and
    how they will react).

    > The reason I bring this up is that I have already seen certain
    > applications, 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 mistake.

    Agreed, and thanks for correcting my post. Would hate for others to take
    my offhanded comments on addressing and use them in production apps.

    Jack


  • Next message: Vicky Shrestha: "Re: Quagga on Xen or VMWare etc"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD