nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Advertisements
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen () sprunk org>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:31:30 -0500
Thus spake <michael.dillon () bt com>
If an ISP wants to aggregate their IPv6 traffic, they will announce one block for their entire global network. Then, internally, they will assign /48s in LA from a western USA internal allocation and /48s in Hamburg from a northwestern Europe internal allocation.
Bad example, since (a) blocks from different RIRs aren't going to aggregate and (b) RIPE doesn't assign /48s anyway.
If we were talking about a company with sites on the east and left coasts of the US, then IMHO they should get a single /48 if they have internal connectivity (single site) and two /48s if not (two sites).
However, I wouldn't argue (much) with ARIN issuing a /47 even in the former case on the logic that such constitutes two "sites", particularly if they had separate management; it's when we get to the level of hundreds or thousands of locations (with internal connectivity) that I have a problem with calling each location a "site". Below that, it doesn't do much harm.
S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6 Advertisements michael.dillon (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 01)
- RE: IPv6 Advertisements michael.dillon (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Chris L. Morrow (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 02)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 02)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Stephen Sprunk (Jun 02)
- RE: IPv6 Advertisements michael.dillon (Jun 01)
- Re: IPv6 Advertisements Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 01)