nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 routing /48s
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:21:15 -0800
On Nov 17, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
As of June, 2008, at least, AfriNIC was not using a distinct range for these.The last time I looked, the RIRs with v6 micro-assignment policies were all doing long-prefix assignments from an easy-to-identify range of addresses. Creating a general-purpose filter which lets through PI /48s but drops PA/deaggregated /48s is not rocket science.
There was discussion of converting to this due to these problems.
Current thread:
- IPv6 routing /48s Robert . E . VanOrmer (Nov 17)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Mark Tinka (Nov 17)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Nick Hilliard (Nov 17)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Kevin Oberman (Nov 17)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Michael Sinatra (Nov 17)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Joe Abley (Nov 17)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Owen DeLong (Nov 17)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Frank Habicht (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Owen DeLong (Nov 17)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Nathan Ward (Nov 17)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Christopher Morrow (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Michael Sinatra (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Joel Jaeggli (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Christopher Morrow (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Jack Bates (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Jeroen Massar (Nov 18)
- Re: IPv6 routing /48s Perry Lorier (Nov 18)