[167532] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 /48 advertisements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chuck Anderson)
Wed Dec 18 11:19:39 2013
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:16:56 -0500
From: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
To: Cliff Bowles <cliff.bowles@apollogrp.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: Cliff Bowles <cliff.bowles@apollogrp.edu>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <1A5C3257AD8D4946A4B497A6FAF501743C45E5B476@EXCH07-01.apollogrp.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 09:11:46AM -0700, Cliff Bowles wrote:
> Question: will carriers accept IPv6 advertisements smaller than /48?
Not generally, no.
> 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 the 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 rather than back hauling it all to the data centers via
> MPLS. However, if we do 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 any carriers consider longer
> prefixes?
/48 per site is the standard.
> I know some people are always saying that the old mentality of
> conserving space 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 allocate unless it's a
> requirement.
You need to throw out all old thinking in terms of what happened in
IPv4. Current ARIN policy allows a /48 per site and that is how you
should architect the network.
