[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 Prefix announcing
- Subject: IPv6 Prefix announcing
- From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:44:24 -0400
- In-reply-to: <4B4120B1642DCF48ACA84E4F82C8E1F65B83E20FC4@EXCH>
- References: <3e67f6c1$2b23cd7f$74e5177b$@com> <[email protected]> <4B4120B1642DCF48ACA84E4F82C8E1F65B83E20FC4@EXCH>
On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Kate Gerry wrote:
> Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(
Vote with your wallet.
Some carriers would prefer if only transit free networks were allowed to originate routes. Doesn't mean you should follow their lead.
--
TTFN,
patrick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner at cluebyfour.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:34 AM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
>
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Nick Olsen wrote:
>
>> I've always been under the impression its best practice to only
>> announce prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
>> I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
>> And if That's the case, What's the magic number? /32? /48? /64?
>
> You're likely to get different answers to this, but the 'magic number'
> appears to be /48. Looking in the v6 BGP table, you will likely find smaller prefixes than that, but a number of the major carriers seem to be settling on /48 as the smallest prefix they will accept. /48 is also the smallest block most of the RIRs will assign to end-users.
>
> jms
>
>