Internal Address Space

[Pim van Pelt]

On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:34:22PM -0500, Charles Hill wrote:
| I agree.  If you insist on using "private" IPv6 address space that
| doesn't route on the internet, why not just use 2002::10.x.x.x to avoid
| any conflicts?  -CH
Charles,

Because 2002::/16 has not been devised for this. It is for the process
for 6to4 transition, and that kind of implies a globally routable IPv4
address.

You are making a fatal misconception that your 2002:10.x.x.x::/48 space
is not routable on the Internet, because it is. Also 2002::10.x.x.x
(assuming that was really what you meant and not just a typo) is
routable, because lots of people announce 6to4 relays which implies
their AS announcing 2002::/16 (and they should not be announcing any
more specific in this /16 either).

I will personally come and kick anyones ass that uses 2002:$rfc1918::/48
space on the 6to4 relays. This is because if some packet arrives at my
(or another) 6to4 relay, it will decapsulate the packet and try to send
it to $rfc1918 space in the IPv4 world. This causes two things:
 o unnessecary load on the 6bone and production IPv6 network
 o unnessecary load on my 6to4 relay for processing this crap

I have seen one DDoS on my own 6to4 relay (becasue there were 'bad
users' relaying through it) that was a bunch of traffic coming from all
sides of the 6bone (v6 connectivity side) and outbound for this
nonexisting space (both rfc1918 and unallocated space).

To wrap it up, let me state the obvious. If you want 'private' space,
please use the scope that was designed for this: sitelocal (fec0::/10)

groet,
Pim

-- 
---------- - -    - - -+- - -    - - ----------
Pim van Pelt                 Email: pim@ipng.nl
http://www.ipng.nl/             IPv6 Deployment
-----------------------------------------------