[167538] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 /48 advertisements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cliff Bowles)
Wed Dec 18 11:47:54 2013
From: Cliff Bowles <cliff.bowles@apollogrp.edu>
To: Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com>, Edward Dore
<edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:40:34 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAJvB4tnBzSxqFACQR30Wv0ojq7H3=yvdsNtTwP0YzdZ4kGyN_w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I had a feeling... thanks for the feedback.
CWB
From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:ikiris@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 9:32 AM
To: Edward Dore
Cc: Cliff Bowles; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 /48 advertisements
Regardless of the carriers, you'll find most ASs on the internet only liste=
n to /48 or larger. So even if you get your prefixes accepted by your provi=
der, don't assume you can get anywhere, or have your packets not fall in to=
uRPF blackholes randomly without a larger aggregate announcement.
-Blake
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Edward Dore <edward.dore@freethought-inte=
rnet.co.uk<mailto:edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk>> wrote:
If you're talking about announcing each location separately, then RIPE have=
a couple of useful articles about prefix visibility on Ripe Labs:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-a-case-study-of-ipv6-48-=
filtering
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dbayer/visibility-of-prefix-lengths
Otherwise I guess you'll need to talk to your chosen carrier(s) about aggre=
gating your space for you, which will come down to their policies on what r=
outes they will carry internally.
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
On 18 Dec 2013, at 16:11, Cliff Bowles <cliff.bowles@apollogrp.edu<mailto:c=
liff.bowles@apollogrp.edu>> wrote:
> I accidentally sent this to nanog-request yesterday. I could use some fee=
dback 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 thos=
e 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 VLA=
Ns (Voice, Data, Local Services, Wireless, Guest Wireless, etc...).
>
> Now, there has been talk about putting an internet link in every campus r=
ather 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?
>
> 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 da=
y and have done a few VLSM network overhauls. I'd rather not massively allo=
cate unless it's a requirement.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> CWB
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in erro=
r, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.
>
________________________________
This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error,=
please notify the sender and remove it from your system.
