[123830] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Bertrand)
Tue Mar 16 21:06:31 2010
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:06:09 -0400
From: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B9FF1A5.10804@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2010.03.16 17:01, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>
> On 03/16/2010 07:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote:
>> Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up.
>>
>> General responses (some that didn't make it to the list):
>> - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it."
>> - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's a
>> bigger assignment
>> - /52 (or /56) on smaller assignments for conservation if it makes you
>> feel better
>> - Open question on whether byte/octet-boundary assignment (/56 vs /52) is
>> better for some reason
>>
>> I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. I've seen
>> discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" (widely
>> deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be?
>
> I filter at /48.
Although I'm small and insignificant, I do too.
> I would consider filtering on something shorter for
> assignments of /32 or shorter if there were obvious bad behaver's. We do
> advertise more specific /36s but we also have the covering /32.
I think that it's going to filter down into a situation where people who
can allow a prefix might change their policy, given that the originator
is known. That doesn't mean that the next person in the chain will
accept it though.
For me, I'll accept /48's until one of two things happen:
- the RIRs decide that they won't be handing them out anymore
- that my routers can't handle the number of prefixes
Other than that, I'd like to see /48 become a standard for acceptance.
Steve
