[6bone] 2001:478:: as /48

[Robert J. Rockell]

I agree with this.  As long as the IP address allocation is used only as
next-hop for prefixes exchanges across some fabric, the DMZ prefix does not
need to be exported outside of the routing domain of the exchange member.

Only time this runs into a problem is when people do something silly like
put a root-server ON the exchange fabric, and use the exchange IP space for
it's host address... My jab at the root-server is also applicable to IPv4
:)

Thanks
Rob Rockell
SprintLink
(+1) 703-689-6322
It's just a little pin prick...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Akira Kato wrote:

->
->> this prefix has/is being carved up into /48 and /64 subnets for
->> use at exchange points and other infrastructure support services.
->
->> Do not expect to see it aggregated.
->
->I have a question: do we need to make such a prefix assigned to
->an exchange point reachable globally?
->
->Provided if every ISP uses "next-hop-self" to their I-BGP peering, the
->addresses on an IX is used only for E-BGP peering. What we loose if
->nobody advertises the IX prefix globally (or even locally)?
->
->If the address is not globally reachable, it is impossible to send
->packets to the routers on the IX and this will be a measure for the
->remote DoS attack if not perfect.
->
->In order to make traceroute happy we may need to establish a DNS zone
->for reverse lookup. But such a DNS server does not have to be on the
->IX.
->
->Akira Kato, WIDE Project
->P.S.
->This discussion is also applicable to IPv4...
->
->
->
->_______________________________________________
->6bone mailing list
->6bone@mailman.isi.edu
->http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
->