On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:29:17PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > 6to4 prefixes more specific than 2002::/16 are allowed to be > > propagated in native IPv6 routing, as long as the more specific > > matchs exactly the mapped most aggregated IPv4 route originated by > > the same AS. > > This is a really, really bad idea, for the reason given in RFC3056: > > 6to4 prefixes more specific than 2002::/16 must not be propagated > in native IPv6 routing, to prevent pollution of the IPv6 routing > table by elements of the IPv4 routing table.
Did you notice, that this particual paragraph in RFC3056 is to be changed by this draft? The whole draft is about why this change is necessary and how can it be done. A proposed alternative is to hand out every ISP a separate /20-IPv6 block, who want's to deploy more stable 6to4. So routing table size is clearly not an issue: 6rd generate a lot of new long term routes while this draft generates the same amount of (filterable) routes within a common prefix. > That is a much more important issue than the fact that 6to4 doesn't work > well for users whose ISPs haven't deployed a 6to4 relay (and > announced 2002::/16 locally). Please do not joke this way. If the ISP announces 2002::/16 and does not run the approbriate service for, there is something terribly wrong. > ISPs do need to pay attention to filtering rules for 2002::/16 announcements. Of course. That's part of the draft. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
