[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Routing of 2002::/16
- Subject: Routing of 2002::/16
- From: [email protected] (Francis Dupont)
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:32:15 +0100
- In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:37:54 GMT. <[email protected]>
In your previous mail you wrote:
I'm looking into setting up a 6to4 relay router for my customers, and
could use some help parsing RFC3056.
=> I had the same problem for a set of experimental IPv6 networks
so we can share ideas...
Now I take it that this means that I must advertise 2002::/16 within my
own network, and to as many of my peers as I (and they) choose, but
there is no requirement to advertise it to the entire IPv6 internet. Is
=> yes, you have not to provide the service to everybody.
If so, is it good practise to attempt to advertise
2002::/16 widely, or selectively?
=> this is economics...
I see also that it's forbidden to advertise prefixes longer than
2002::/16, for good reason.
=> yes, in our case a longer prefix is useless.
This would seem to mean that packets going
from native IPv6 site --> 6to4 site are reliant on either the native
site (or their upstream) having a relay router, or on some kind person
advertising 2002::/16 to the entire internet. Is this so?
=> yes, the routing protocol will choose the best one.
Between a native IPv6 node and a 6to4 one, the position of 6to4 relays
will give what IPv6 and IPv4 infrastructures are used.
As they are not free in general, this matters!
My advice is we have to control this, by proper management of
advertisements and filtering at the IPv6 relay against abuse
(not only the long list of trivial abuses you can get in KAME stf
manual page, Itojun can say more about this).