On 7/15/12 11:58 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote: > On 2012-07-15 15:30, Scott Morris wrote: >>> There was also in the past fec0::/10. For BGP updates you should be safe >>> to filter out FC00::/6. >> Unless I've missed something, RFC4193 lays out FC00::/7, not the /6. So >> while FE00::/7 may yet be unallocated, I don't think I'd set filters in >> that fashion. >> Reasonably, wouldn't it be more likely to permit BGP advertisements >> within the 2000::/3 range as that's the "active" space currently? > FF00::/8 are multicast, FE80::/10 are reserved for link-local. In the > past you had FEC0::/10 as a kind of private addresses. > > Allowing 2000::/3 is fine as well. Btw - what are the estimates - how > long are we going to be within 2000::/3? >
hehehhe.. Long enough for us to forget what prefix lists we put on to begin with and need to look them back up!