On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 06:21:10PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> Very late to this party, but:
>
> On 27-Jun-2007, at 09:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> >We can argue about the meaning of "intrinsically" I guess. But what
> >I mean
> >is that they are /48s and I don't expect to see /48s routed globally.
> >Architecturally, they are certainly routeable (and so are /128s).
> >But I am sure they will be filtered.
>
> I hope they won't all be filtered, since there are a non-trivial
> number of infrastructure services in the DNS which are deployed
> using /48s assigned directly from RIRs under policies designed to
> facilitate critical infrastructure.
>
> I realise that you were talking in far more general terms than this,
> but every time I see someone make blanket statements about "/48s" and
> their presence in the DFZ it makes me twitch. Not all /48s are
> components of larger assignments or allocations.
actually, to borrow a phrase from a mutual associate,
"I encourage Brian (and others) to filter /48s" .... :)
i think that it will make their IPv6 experience that much
more enjoyable/useful.
--bill
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
