[157241] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Carpenter)
Thu Oct 11 18:06:19 2012
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:06:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
In-Reply-To: <063217D1-6FAC-4AEA-ABF8-28DB35959402@netconsonance.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
>
> so there really is no drawback from getting the /44, and having
> enough space to not have to worry about it in the future.
>
>
> It's only a worry if you can only route /48s, which was my question.
> And seriously, we're going to be banging around in the emptiness as
> compared to our IPv4 allocations. :)
You can route /48 or shorter (larger)
How many sites do you have? If less than 192, /44 is perfect, unless some of those sites require more than a /48. Then, it gets more complicated :-)
-Randy
