Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

[Grzegorz Janoszka <Grzegorz () Janoszka pl>]

On 2012-07-15 15:30, Scott Morris wrote:
> > There was also in the past fec0::/10. For BGP updates you should be safe
> > to filter out FC00::/6.
> Unless I've missed something, RFC4193 lays out FC00::/7, not the /6.  So
> while FE00::/7 may yet be unallocated, I don't think I'd set filters in
> that fashion.
> Reasonably, wouldn't it be more likely to permit BGP advertisements
> within the 2000::/3 range as that's the "active" space currently?

FF00::/8 are multicast, FE80::/10 are reserved for link-local. In the
past you had FEC0::/10 as a kind of private addresses.

Allowing 2000::/3 is fine as well. Btw - what are the estimates - how
long are we going to be within 2000::/3?

-- 
Grzegorz Janoszka