We kind of needed them in IPv4, though not universally. At least in IPv6, we have them.
Owen On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > you know what I love? address selection rules, or rather the fact that > we have to have them in this new ip protocol :( > > bugs and code problems and operational headaches and filters and ... :( > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jack Bates <jba...@brightok.net> wrote: >> On 4/27/2012 11:20 AM, Chris Adams wrote: >>> >>> Once upon a time, Jack Bates<jba...@brightok.net> said: >>>> >>>> fe80::/65 discard >>>> fe80:0:0:0:8000::/65 discard >>>> >>>> More specifics rule out over connected any day. >>> >>> That would also kill any legitimate link-local traffic though. >> >> >> Perhaps. I'm actually curious on that, as the rules for routing to >> link-local are very specialized. It might flag on uRPF for local traffic, >> but that can be overcome with a fail filter. Sending out from the RE could >> likely ignore the route, as it has to send to specific interfaces. Receiving >> on interfaces that don't have uRPF should still work as well. >> >> It's a theory and would have to be tested. >> >> Jack >>
