[139972] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 Prefix announcing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kate Gerry)
Tue Apr 26 12:39:11 2011
From: Kate Gerry <kate@quadranet.com>
To: "'Justin M. Streiner'" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:39:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104261232030.29098@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32...=
:(
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner@cluebyfour.org]=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:34 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Nick Olsen wrote:
> I've always been under the impression its best practice to only=20
> announce prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
> I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
> And if That's the case, What's the magic number? /32? /48? /64?
You're likely to get different answers to this, but the 'magic number'=20
appears to be /48. Looking in the v6 BGP table, you will likely find small=
er prefixes than that, but a number of the major carriers seem to be settli=
ng on /48 as the smallest prefix they will accept. /48 is also the smalles=
t block most of the RIRs will assign to end-users.
jms
