[157236] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jo Rhett)
Thu Oct 11 17:31:30 2012
From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
In-Reply-To: <50773774.9080807@unfix.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:31:13 -0700
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
Cc: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
First:
> But likely if you are in that camp, just asking for address space,
> that you can use stably for a long time, from your network provider =
who
> provides you connectivity is a better way to go.
Um, sorry I figured by the fact that I was posting on Nanog the context =
was clear, but I've forgotten how Nanog is now a go-to source for home =
network too :( The context was for what Nanog was originally intended =
for: We are provider-independent and peering around the world.
On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> A /64 is for a single link =85(snip)... A /48 (or /56 for end-users =
for some of the RIRs) is for a single end-site
Sorry, I wasn't looking for the breakdown of expected usage. I know =
those maps. What I was asking was whether you can PI-route a /56 or =
anything less than a /48 today. It's "nice" to have a few dozen of the =
entire Internet for each site, but totally unnecessary.
> If you thus have 5 end-sites, you should have room for 5 /48s and thus =
a
> /47 is what you can justify.
Really? One bit can flip that many ways? ;-) I assume you mean /45, and =
apparently ARIN's recommended size is /44 anyway.
--=20
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet =
projects.
