nanog mailing list archives
RE: using "reserved" IPv6 space
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda () icann org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:41:37 -0700
Hammer wrote:
In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or "non-routable" space Internally in production for segments that won't be seen anywhere else. Examples? A sync VLAN for some FWs to share state. An IBGP link between routers that will never be seen or advertised. In those cases, we have often used 192.0.2.0/24. It's reserved and never used and even if it did get used one day we aren't "routing" it internally. It's just on segments where we need some L3 that will never be seen. On to IPv6 I was considering taking the same approach. Maybe using 0100::/8 or 1000::/4 or A000::/3 as a space for this.
Why can't you just generate a ULA and use that? Regards, Leo
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description:
Current thread:
- using "reserved" IPv6 space -Hammer- (Jul 13)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Jeroen Massar (Jul 13)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space -Hammer- (Jul 13)
- RE: using "reserved" IPv6 space Leo Vegoda (Jul 13)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space TJ (Jul 13)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space -Hammer- (Jul 13)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Randy Bush (Jul 13)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Owen DeLong (Jul 13)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Brandon Ross (Jul 13)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space joseph . snyder (Jul 14)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space -Hammer- (Jul 14)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Owen DeLong (Jul 14)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space -Hammer- (Jul 14)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Robert E. Seastrom (Jul 14)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space -Hammer- (Jul 13)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Jeroen Massar (Jul 13)