[154703] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Any advantage of announcing IPv6/64s Or purely misconfiguration?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Mon Jul 9 11:13:57 2012
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: Anurag Bhatia <me@anuragbhatia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ0+aXY26JV8i6Dmh5nOgjaAFTOZSwb64m8+MGk-XZCws4TmDw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> I was just looking around and say a major Indian provider Sify (AS9583) is
> announcing /64s via BGP along with main /32 which is their allocation from
> APNIC.
[snip]
> Is it simply a misconfiguration or there is some use of announcing /64s
> along with main /32?
Most of the major carriers I've seen appear to have settled on /48 as the
smallest IPv6 prefix they will accept, much like /24 is the smallest IPv4
prefix that most providers will accept. Anything smaller runs the risk of
mixed degrees of acceptance. As long as the /64 is part of a larger
parent block, there shouldn't be any total loss of connectivity, however
the routing to one of those /64 sites could be sub-optimal.
Advertising /64s into the global routing table is bad mojo.
jms
