[routing-wg] Fwd: Time to add 2002::/16 to bogon filters?
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Measuring Routing (In)security
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Fwd: Time to add 2002::/16 to bogon filters?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at ntt.net
Mon Jun 18 23:28:20 CEST 2018
Dear working group, Feedback welcome - should 2002::/16 still be accepted in the DFZ? Kind regards. Job ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 23:08 Subject: Time to add 2002::/16 to bogon filters? To: NANOG [nanog at nanog.org] <nanog at nanog.org> Dear all, TL;DR: Perhaps it is time to add 2002::/16 to our EBGP bogon filters? It is kind of strange that in the default-free zone (where we don’t announce defaults to each other) - we will propagate what is effectively an IPv4 default-route, in the IPv6 DFZ. IETF has politely abandoned the prefix: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7526 Wes George highlighted operational problems from accepting 2002::/16 on the data-plane slide 6: http://iepg.org/2018-03-18-ietf101/wes.pdf Is there still really any legit reason left to accept, or propagate, 2002::/16 on EBGP sessions in the DFZ? Kind regards, Job -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/attachments/20180618/b0534185/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Measuring Routing (In)security
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Fwd: Time to add 2002::/16 to bogon filters?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]