Francis Dupont wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: > > Of course. But as Jeroen said, please read RFC3056. The only more-specifics > under 2002::/8 that make any sense whatsoever are /48, and there would > *potentially* be about 300,000 of them today, one per announced IPv4 network > More specifics under 2002::/8 are very much not allowed. Mr R. Bush gave > us a very hard time about that before RFC3056 was approved. > > => unfortunately if someone does it there is nothing we can do (no > Internet police :-). I am afraid one day we regret not have adopted > my proposal to reverse the bits of the embedded IPv4 address, a drastic > way to enforce no spurious injection of the IPv4 mess into the IPv6 > routing table... That would have been a partial solution indeed that would have voided any person from attempting to do so indeed ;) Fortunately 2002::/16 is very well filtered. And people who do try that one will be shot on site, thus this is a non-issue IMHO. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature