using "reserved" IPv6 space

Scott Morris swm at
Sun Jul 15 22:21:09 UTC 2012

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!

More information about the NANOG mailing list