[165899] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson)
Wed Sep 25 01:53:57 2013
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:52:16 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
To: "Nathanael C. Cariaga" <nccariaga@stluke.com.ph>
In-Reply-To: <5242543C.8020709@stluke.com.ph>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--9dgjiU4MmWPVapMU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Date: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:1=
0:52AM +0800 Quoting Nathanael C. Cariaga (nccariaga@stluke.com.ph):
> Hi,
>=20
> I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
>=20
> On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough
> for our organization to use for at least the next 5-10 years
> assuming that this can be farmed out to our multiple sites. What
> makes this complicated for us is that we are operating on a multiple
> sites (geographically) with each site is doing multi-homing and
> having a /48 in each site would be very big waste of IP resources.
If you've got island networks w/o links between you SHOULD request a /48 pe=
r site.=20
--=20
M=C3=A5ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
Pardon me, but do you know what it means to be TRULY ONE with your BOOTH!
--9dgjiU4MmWPVapMU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlJCehAACgkQ02/pMZDM1cXabgCgpX0/YYkohrQaPQjJDLIyHWwf
JPsAoJZMd5u5am9U9czzW3DjeG4/1TW/
=kn/w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--9dgjiU4MmWPVapMU--
