[6bone] Exchange Point Addresses

[Pekka Savola]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Pim van Pelt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 08:20:56PM +0000, Robert Kiessling wrote:
> | Pim van Pelt <pim@ipng.nl> writes:
> | 
> | > On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 12:45:59PM -0400, ww@GROOVY.NET wrote:
> | > | At the Toronto Internet Exchange (TORIX) we've been talking about
> | > | making it possible to peer natively over IPv6. The problem is
> | > | getting addresses for the exchange -- RIPE seems to have a clear
> | > | policy (they'll hand out a /64), but ARIN doesn't appear to. It
> | > | would not be appropriate to use addresses from one of the providers
> | > | at the exchange since TORIX has been, since its inception, 
> | > | provider neutral and we'd like to keep it that way.
> | > They give out a (non-aggregatable) /48, which is IMO almost 100%
> | > pointless (not a /64 like you mentioned).
> | 
> | It fulfils exactly what it's made for: to provide neutral,
> | provider-independent IPv6 addresses for the exchange mesh. There was
> | and is a need for this, so it's far from "100% useless".
> Hi Robert,
>  
> Sitelocal will do fine for these things. If you can't route it, I don't
> see the point in having it allocated from the 2000::/3 aggregate. I
> would find fec0::/10 addresses in the peering mesh useful. 

Reverse DNS won't work nicely with traceroute w/ site-locals, though.

How significant this is, is another question..
 
> Some router implementations drop any packets from sources which they do 
> not have a route to in their FIB.

Broken implementations, or those using unicast RPF I guess.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords