[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Per Heldal
heldal at eml.cc
Wed May 30 18:43:44 CEST 2007
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 10:48 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On May 30, 2007, at 4:33 AM, Per Heldal wrote: > > > If you want to endorse PI for "private" use please also consider > > that it > > leaves blocks wide open to abuse. Separate ULA-C space can easily be > > filtered, but how do you easily prevent hijacking of unannounced > > PI-prefixes should such private blocks become as commonplace as > > rfc1918-space? > > How do you prevent it now, in IPv4 ? I filter private addresses ;) (rfc1918). > (I know several companies with > addressable blocks for > internal use, and so I suspect that this is not that rare.) I expect those relatively few with "hidden" V4 PI to be elegible for V6 PI and that they will continue a similar practise with V6. My concern is directed at those who promote unannounced public V6 blocks as a mass-replacement for rfc1918 when efforts imho are better spent on solutions to eliminate the use of NAT and private space. Btw, holding back part of a PI block is also going to create problems. >From a transit-provider perspective I find it reasonable to filter anything smaller than RIR-allocated blocks . I.e. anything longer than a /48 from PI-land is filtered. A couple extra bits may be accepted if the as-path-length is 2 or less (for TE purposes). Similar goes for PA-land. Where does that leave a /48 split split up to keep parts of it "secret"? //per
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]