Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

[Scott Morris <swm () emanon com>]

On 7/15/12 11:58 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> 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?

hehehhe..   Long enough for us to forget what prefix lists we put on to
begin with and need to look them back up!