[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Alain Durand wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:23am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Subject: suspect routing?
> > Hi,
> > What is the general take on mapped IPv4 address prefixes being
> > propogated within 6bone, e.g. ::192.0.2.10
> > And I've found a recent "feature" that allows the propogation
> > of the loopback address ::1
> My opinion is that:
> - IPv4 compatible routes should not be advertized
I certainly agree with this. The injection of IPv6 compatible IPv4
addresses is bound to cause confusion and, as far as I can see, serves no
useful purpose (please correct me on that last statement if I'm missing
something obvious ;-)
> - Static routes should be injected in RIPng
> only if they are for directly attached links or tunnels
This needs to be slightly widened to allow for any routes which are
connected via a static route to an organisation using static routing to a
RIPng site (I know this is unlikely but it's possible and so we should not
preclude the injection of such routes into RIPng). I think the main aim
of Alain's statement here is to avoid multihop statics which conflict with
RIPng routes. I can say from first-hand experience that this can cause
very strange problems which confused me and several others for most of a
> - No default route nor 5f00::/8 routes shld ever be advertized
Not onto the 6bone at large. You may want to advertise defaults to
internal networks running RIPng which have access to only one router.
> - more generaly, no routes with a prefixlength < 32 should
> ever be advertized.
Again, on the 6bone, this should _never_ be necessary. When mapped onto
the "future Internet" running IPv6, it will clearly be feasible, given the
proposed address usage (pre 8+8), for routes < /32 to be necessary.
Just my thoughts.
> - Alain.