On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 07:20:07PM +0900, Yuji Sekiya wrote:
> At Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:58:22 +0100,
> Jacek Konieczny <jajcus@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > + enabling default route when ipv6 forwarding is
> > > > > enabled,
> > > > Is this really needed? It is a very good feature, that default route is
> > > > not available when ipv6 forwarding (most of IPv6 address space should
> > > > never be forwarded by a default route).
> > >
> > > For routers in default free zone, it is true. But how about routers in
> > > leaf sites ? All router should have full routes ?
> > No just a route for all unicast addresses: 2000::/3 (AFAIR)
> > And (maybe) something similar for multicast (if no better multicast
> > routing is available)
> Actually it means default route. I can't see why you announce or add
> statically the route instead of default route.
This is not the same as default route. Prefix 2000::/3 does not contain
multicast nor link-local and site-local addresses. Only global unicast
When using default route you should (but I am almost sure most people
wouldn't do it) block those addresses by other means.
There are a lot of IPv4 packages with "private network" addresses going
through the Internet just because of badly configured routers -- all
unknown packages go out the default route even if they are