oops, I replied about this to the previous thread, didn't realize it had split. https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-July/007118.html
-Cynthia On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:08 AM Job Snijders via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello db group, > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:11:46PM +0200, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > > According to the implementation plan: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006876.html > > > > if these ranges are not marked as "available" or "reserved" in an > > RIR's delegated stats, then it will be skipped, and I didn't find > > 192.88.99.0/24 in any RIR's delegated stats. > > > > (To Ronald and the list) Should we add other sources of bogon prefixes > > (e.g. RFC 3068) to the implementation? > > RFC 3068 was obsoleted by RFC 7526, a document that 'deprecates' > 192.88.99.0/24. The whole thing is here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7526.html > > Unfortuntaly, RFC 7526 is not entirely clear on what 'deprecation' means > in context of for example the 'Forwardable' and 'Globally Reachable' > colums of the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry" table at: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml > > The goal of RFC 7526 seems to be to discourage further growth of the > 6to4 anycast network, but doesn't specify what should happen with > existing 6to4 deployments (other than needing to be 'reviewed'). > > I personally probably wouldn't object to the removal of > 'route: 192.88.99.0/24' objects from the RIPE-NONAUTH database, but some > quick testing on my personal Internet connection shows 6to4 instances > still ping and forwarding paths to 192.88.99.1 still exist. I know of > some corporate ISPs that block 192.88.99.0/24, but clearly not every > operator filters. What does this mean? > > Perhaps the topic of what to do IPv4/IPv6 transition prefixes in the > RIPE-NONAUTH DB should be brought up in the RIPE IPv6 WG? > > Kind regards, > > Job > (speaking as db-wg enthusiast) > >
