nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:05:13 GMT
4) Obtain PA space and do what you're doing with v4.
(4) is problematic because filtering long prefixes in v6 seems to be more energetic than it is in v4. (5) is problematic if you don't qualify for PI space.
Oi, nooo Lets not recreate the v4 issues by suggesting it's just problematic, it should not happen. If you're going to add a prefix at least do it properly get PI, keep PA as PA only. No PI too hard excuses. If there were global stricter filtering at allocations then the hijacking problem would be one less excuse for people to justify crazy deaggregation brandon
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Osmon (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Curran (Feb 10)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Palmer (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 10)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mohacsi Janos (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 05)