[157284] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward Dore)
Sun Oct 14 10:05:15 2012
From: Edward Dore <edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4FEF985E-0131-49BE-8407-76D04217A8BF@netconsonance.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:04:55 +0100
To: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
RIPE Labs had an interesting article about filtering of /48 prefixes =
earlier this year that might be of some interest to you: =
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-a-case-study-of-ipv6-48=
-filtering
There's also a useful RIPE Labs article on general prefix filtering =
lengths from August last year: =
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dbayer/visibility-of-prefix-lengths
Edward Dore=20
Freethought Internet=20
On 11 Oct 2012, at 22:02, 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
> --=20
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet =
projects.
>=20
>=20
>=20
