% Bob,
%
% > Bob Hinden wrote:
% > Another router issue that gets talked around is should
% > packets with site-local destination be forwarded to
% > "default". Given that site-local addresses are not
% > created without being configured, one approach could be
% > to have a "black hole" route for FEC0::/10 preconfigured
% > in all routers.
%
% There is some potential in this.
%
% Rationale: ambiguity is a fail-safe for routes that leak in the DFZ even
% though they were not supposed to and for ISPs that don't filter them
% even though they were supposed to.
%
% If we could add to this black hole a preconfigured prefix-list for each
% peer that would deny FEC0::/10 ge 10 (1) that would likely be good
% enough to let ambiguity go and we would make a step towards globally
% unique site-locals.
%
% (1) I am thinking about something like the default deny at the end,
% except that it would be at the beginning and would be effective even
% though there is no prefix-list applied to the peer. Something that would
% require a separate command and a confirmation to de-activate. Why would
% one want site-locals in BGP anyway?
%
% Michel.
%
per interface or per-peer? (will require a better understanding
of default behaviour of routing protocols)
if per-peer, which routing protocol?
--
--bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
