IPv6 routing /48s

trejrco at gmail.com trejrco at gmail.com
Wed Nov 19 15:42:49 CST 2008


Yeah, that's part of why it isn't feasible :)

Also - a more generalized black-hole detection type mechanism (to also catch PMTUD failures, etc) would be mighty useful ... 


/TJ
------Original Message------
From: Nathan Ward
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: IPv6 routing /48s
Sent: Nov 19, 2008 15:34

On 20/11/2008, at 10:11 AM, trejrco at gmail.com wrote:

> Ah yes, public-but-not-external IPv4 addresses ... I wish a stern  
> note saying don't do that was feasible ...


What people do with their addresses is their business.

The problem here is XPSP2/Vista assuming that non-RFC1918 = unfiltered/ 
unNATed for the purposes of 6to4.
Well, deeper problem is that they're using 6to4 on an end host I  
suppose - it's supposed to be used on routers.

I was going to write up a qualification mechanism for it so it could  
detect if 6to4 was OK or not, but code is already out there on umpteen  
million PCs that aren't going to do their patches.
I still plan to.. hopefully I'll get around to it when I feel a bit  
less jaded :-)

--
Nathan Ward







Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


More information about the NANOG mailing list