On 20-mrt-2007, at 4:19, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
The default unicast route (::) may be advertised in an IGP. It mustnot be advertised in an EGP unless it has been requested by the recipient.
Is this really wise anyway? Firstly, it should probably be "::/0" , :: is a whole different route on most systems, but that's just anal pedantry.
Right, :: is the unspecified IPv6 address, ::/0 is a prefix encompassing the entire IPv6 address space.
But is using :: as a default unicast route wise? Why not 2000::/3?
Because then it wouldn't be a default route but a "global unicast space as we know it today" route.
I had a look at the draft and I'm afraid that it doesn't really provide much useful information. Sure, there is lots of stuff that people shouldn't put in their routing protocol, but most of this stuff happens automatically anyway and nearly all of the rest can be summarized as "only advertise routes that you've received from an ISP or registry for that purpose".