Timeline for What IPv6 prefixes should never be routed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2021 at 6:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc with https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc
|
|
| S Sep 8, 2015 at 0:55 | history | suggested | Ferrybig | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
1 table caption was missing, copied table caption from RFC to post
|
| Sep 7, 2015 at 10:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 8, 2015 at 0:55 | |||||
| Jul 20, 2013 at 21:12 | comment | added | Paul Gear | Why would you want to filter 2002::/16? That would stop anyone who's using 6to4 as a transition mechanism from communicating with you. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 4:07 | comment | added | Daniel Dib | Obviously if you are using any of these prefixes then you should not filter them. Maybe you are using Teredo etc but the default stance should be to filter them unless you are running NAT or tunneling. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 3:21 | comment | added | zevlag | I disagree that all special purpose addresses "Should Never be routed" or that they should "at least be filtered". For example, there are some of those that are flagged "Forwardable" and "Global", particularly 64:ff9b::/96 for NAT64. | |
| May 14, 2013 at 18:37 | vote | accept | Craig Constantine | ||
| May 13, 2013 at 21:02 | history | answered | Daniel Dib | CC BY-SA 3.0 |