suspect routing?

[bmanning@ISI.EDU]

> 
> On Mar 4,  8:23am, bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:
> > Subject: suspect routing?
> >
> > Hi,
> > 	What is the general take on mapped IPv4 address prefixes being
> > 	propogated within 6bone, e.g.  ::192.0.2.10
> >
> > 	And I've found a recent "feature" that allows the propogation
> > 	of the loopback address  ::1
> 
> 
> My opinion is that:
> 
> 	- IPv4 compatible routes should not be advertized

	Perhaps...

> 	- Static routes should be injected in RIPng

	Why?

> 	- No default route nor 5f00::/8 routes shld ever be advertized
> 	- more generaly, no routes with a prefixlength < 32 should
> 	  ever be advertized.

	Here is an interesting question for the addressing crowd. 
	Should CIDR style masking apply across the whole IPv6 address
	or do we respect the pro-forma segmenets in the preamble that
	indicate address type?
	For that matter, what happens with the new'n'improved RG+EID
	guck?

	For purposes of the discussion:

	bah#sh ipv6 rou sum
	IPv6 Routing Table Summary - 124 entries
	  4 local, 5 connected, 0 static, 115 RIP
          Number of prefixes:
	/1: 1, /2: 1, /32: 38, /48: 11, /64: 38, /80: 26, /127: 3, /128: 6



> - Alain.
> 


-- 
--bill