On 2011-07-08 19:16, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > Guess I should clearify something, the thing I am considering are to > drop all 2002::/16 addresses hard, of course preferable return a > correct error messages to. This is an awesomely bad idea. As explained in the approved advisory document, it makes things worse for everybody (the user, the content provider, and the unfortunate person answering calls from either of them at the help desk). On the contrary - it's in everyone's interests to have the return path working. Once a user manages to get a packet to the content provider, everybody suffers if the return path fails. (However, if you are announcing a route to 2002::/16, it must lead to a relay that will relay all 6to4 packets, with no form of ACL). Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf