North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: IPv6 support for com/net zones on October 19, 2004
- From: Hannigan, Martin
- Date: Wed Oct 27 16:29:16 2004
Thanks Joe, great post re the /48's, I was just about to.
We're working on this.
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Joe Abley
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:02 PM
> To: Daniel Roesen
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: IPv6 support for com/net zones on October 19, 2004
> On 27 Oct 2004, at 15:43, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:21:44PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> >> Maybe Verisign needs more (reliable) v6 transit.
> > Something is broken in several colors here. I'm seeing AS_PATHs
> > like 6830 6175 109 7018 26415 (Sprint, Cisco, AT&T, Verisign) but
> > a traceroute is going straight from 6830 to AT&T and dying there
> > with !P.
> > That you have no route for A is most probably a filtering issue
> > somewhere... I'm seeing it being propagated by Sprint.
> Since I mailed that, 3557 started receiving a covering /48
> for A. Maybe
> there's some operational/maintenance-induced stability issues
> for those
> We've had reports before of F's covering /48 (2001:500::/48) being
> filtered by some people, based on the conviction that /48s
> were always
> bad and should never be accepted by anybody. It's possible
> that this is
> biting Verisign, too.
> For the record, ARIN assign critical-infrastructure /48s which it is
> important to accept:
> Gert Döring maintains an excellent summary of current good
> practice for
> v6 filtering (including cisco and JUNOS configuration examples, and
> filters of various degrees of strictness) here:
> Operators who are currently blocking any prefix covered by 2001::/16
> which is longer than 32 bits are encouraged to review that page, and
> fix their routers.