[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)

Subject: Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
From: jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:54:35 -0500
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On 10/23/2010 2:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> However, deliberate routing of ULA will start small and slowly spread
> over time like a slow-growing cancer. You won't even really detect it
> until it has metastasized to such an extent that nothing can be done
> about it.

Which is why all v6 templates really need to get this in as a 
discard/filter/etc, just as we do with RFC-1918. I'm not saying it is 
perfect, but based on how much bogon lists have hurt legitimate traffic, 
we know the templates are at least used.

Jack

References:
- IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses
  - From: jeroen at mompl.net (Jeroen van Aart)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses
  - From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy)
- Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: rps at maine.edu (Ray Soucy)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
- Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
  - From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)

Prev by Date: Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
Next by Date: Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
Previous by thread: Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
Next by thread: Re: Why ULA: low collision chance (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread