[117791] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Vegoda)
Sat Oct 3 06:02:35 2009
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
To: James Aldridge <jhma@mcvax.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 03:01:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <8D752E651844BEF62C9B02C9@dhcp-194.ripeadm.ripe.net>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:28 AM, "James Aldridge" <jhma@mcvax.org> wrote:
[...]
> It might be worth relaxing filtering within 2001::/16. The RIPE NCC
> appears to be making /48 PI assignments from within 2001:678::/29 =20
> (e.g. the
> RIPE Meeting next week will be using 2001:67c:64::/48)
Why the whole /16 rather than just that /29 and a few other blocks set =20
aside for /48s? There are a lot of /48s in a /16, so protecting =20
against someone accidentally deaggregating their allocated /32 into /=20
48s seems legitimate.
Regards,
Leo
