On 3 Oct 2007, at 22:03, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I would suggest making the reference to RFC 3964 more specific, e.g.
2.7. 6to4
2002::/16 are the 6to4 addresses [RFC4291][RFC3056]. The 6to4
addresses may be advertised when the site is running a 6to4
relay or
offering a 6to4 transit service. However, the provider of this
service should be aware of the implications of running such
service[RFC3964], which includes some specific filtering rules for
6to4. IPv4 addresses disallowed in 6to4 prefixes are listed
in section 5.3.1 of [RFC3964].
Good idea. I think that works for me. Specific indirect
reference avoids the parallel-maintenance problem entrained
by repetition.
I'm also concerned about ugly pockets of ::/96 and
::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 such as RFC1918 reservations. Can they
be covered by similar language.
In reference to Joe's list, I think it's out of place to mention
14/8, but in any case, if the list is incomplete, we need to fix
RFC 3964. Having a different list here would be confusing.
If/when 3964 is fixed, won't the list here need fixing to
synchronize. Wouldn't it be good to find a short-cut?
/Niall