[157245] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 11 18:21:01 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <50773774.9080807@unfix.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:11:09 -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
On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
> On 2012-10-11 23:02 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>> I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the
>> IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we
>> need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't
>> effectively announce anything smaller than a /48. Is this still
>> true?
>>=20
>> Is this likely to change in the immediate future, or do I need to ask
>> for a /44?
>=20
> A /64 is for a single link (broadcast domain, though with IPv6 =
multicast
> domain is more appropriate).
>=20
> A /48 (or /56 for end-users for some of the RIRs) is for a single
> end-site ("a different administrative domain and/or a different =
physical
> location").
>=20
> If you thus have 5 end-sites, you should have room for 5 /48s and thus =
a
> /47 is what you can justify.
>=20
Couple of errors there, Jeroen=85
1. 5 /48s is at least a /45, not a /47 which is only 2 /48s.
2. Joe lives in the ARIN region where allocations and assignments are
done on nibble boundaries, so his /45 would be rounded up to
a /44 (as would a /47) anyway.
Owen
