[117792] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Aldridge)
Sat Oct 3 08:58:52 2009
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:58:21 +0100
From: James Aldridge <jhma@mcvax.org>
To: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <FC7DF09A-2E2D-4C62-B3DE-AFFE2B81A6B7@icann.org>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--On 3 October 2009 03:01:42 -0700 Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> wrote:
> 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
>> (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
> aside for /48s? There are a lot of /48s in a /16, so protecting
> against someone accidentally deaggregating their allocated /32 into /
> 48s seems legitimate.
Indeed. By "within 2001::/16" I was just pointing out that, not having the
definitive list, there were some blocks "within 2001::/16" which require a
longer prefix.
James
