[96921] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Advertisements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Tue May 29 14:34:41 2007
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Date: 29 May 2007 16:45:53 +0000
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705291140280.20179@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> > I understand the problems but I think there are clear cut cases where
> > /48's make sense- a large scale anycast DNS provider would seem to be a
> > good candidate for a /48 and I would hope it would get routed. Then
> > again that might be the only sensible reason...
>
> f-root does this on the IPv6 side: 2001:500::/48
>
> Whether that's available everywhere on IPv6 networks, is as Bill
> pointed-out, another question.
<http://www.arin.net/reference/micro_allocations.html> explains what's going
on with that /48. <http://www.root-servers.org/> shows some other /48's. if
the RIR community wants "critical infrastructure" to use a /48, then f-root's
operator will comply. if the RIR community changes its mind, then f-root's
operator will comply with that, too.
--
Paul Vixie
