Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <32ECC9CD-D927-4407-914C-751316C59966 () istaff org>, John Curran write
s:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> > > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
> > > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
> >
> > Yep, and that's great.  Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
> > packet like this.
>
> So, it won't work for you.  Is there any reason that it shouldn't 
> be defined as unicast or private use (with warnings) rather than 
> "Future Use", so that those who might have a use for it can do so?
>
> /John

Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it?   In many cases
it is a minimal change.  I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
but it can't hurt to ask the vendors if it is technically possible.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org