[167530] in North American Network Operators' Group
IPv6 /48 advertisements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cliff Bowles)
Wed Dec 18 11:12:09 2013
From: Cliff Bowles <cliff.bowles@apollogrp.edu>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:11:46 -0700
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I accidentally sent this to nanog-request yesterday. I could use some feedb=
ack from anyone that can help, please.
Question: will carriers accept IPv6 advertisements smaller than /48?
Our org was approved a /36 based on number of locations. The bulk of those =
IPs will be in the data centers. As we were chopping up the address space, =
it was determined that the remote campus locations would be fine with a /60=
per site. (16 networks of /64). There are usually less than 50 people at t=
he majority of these locations and only about 10 different functional VLANs=
(Voice, Data, Local Services, Wireless, Guest Wireless, etc...).
Now, there has been talk about putting an internet link in every campus rat=
her than back hauling it all to the data centers via MPLS. However, if we d=
o this, then would we need a /48 per campus? That is massively wasteful, at=
65,536 networks per location. Is the /48 requirement set in stone? Will a=
ny carriers consider longer prefixes?
I know some people are always saying that the old mentality of conserving s=
pace needs to go away, but I was bitten by that IPv4 issue back in the day =
and have done a few VLSM network overhauls. I'd rather not massively alloca=
te unless it's a requirement.
Thanks in advance.
CWB
________________________________
This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error,=
please notify the sender and remove it from your system.
