On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 09:35:20AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > That has been long rejected, see > > https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2011-05/ > > > > It is not possible to use unannounced or RFC1918 address space for IXP > > peering lans, as this breaks URPF and ICMP communication, and breaks > > the opportunity for debugging of connections over the Exchange for > > connected and non-connected networks due to the IX path missing from > > traceroutes, and peering routers not getting the ability to set > > reverse DNS. > > Well in respect to your proposal I bet there would be folks asking to use > link-local v6 addresses as next hops: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-linklocal-capability/ > > And how would that help to accomplish the above quoted reasons ?
That is outside the scope of this document which clearly expects that the network is addressed by IPv6 GUA. > Also if I have v4 only clients (yes large enterprises still use v4 and not > even planning transition to v6) how would that debugging work over v6 only > IXP fabric ? What about this draft which is in the process of finalization? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid/ Also, literally this, i.e. large enterprises never transitioning to v6, is the major reason for specifying a transitional mechanism which would allow IXPs to get rid of IPv4 before all their customers do. -- Maria Matejka (she/her) | BIRD Team Leader | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
