nanog mailing list archives
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
From: James Aldridge <jhma () mcvax org>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:58:21 +0100
--On 3 October 2009 03:01:42 -0700 Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda () icann org> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:28 AM, "James Aldridge" <jhma () mcvax org> wrote:It might be worth relaxing filtering within 2001::/16. The RIPE NCC appears to be making /48 PI assignments from within 2001:678::/29 (e.g. the RIPE Meeting next week will be using 2001:67c:64::/48)Why the whole /16 rather than just that /29 and a few other blocks set aside for /48s? There are a lot of /48s in a /16, so protecting against someone accidentally deaggregating their allocated /32 into / 48s seems legitimate.
Indeed. By "within 2001::/16" I was just pointing out that, not having the definitive list, there were some blocks "within 2001::/16" which require a longer prefix.
James
Current thread:
- Minimum IPv6 size Seth Mattinen (Oct 02)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Kevin Oberman (Oct 02)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size James Aldridge (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Leo Vegoda (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size James Aldridge (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Leo Bicknell (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Kevin Oberman (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Christian Seitz (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Kevin Oberman (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size James Aldridge (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Kevin Oberman (Oct 02)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Seth Mattinen (Oct 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Brandon Butterworth (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Brandon Butterworth (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Matthew Petach (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Leo Vegoda (Oct 04)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Matthew Petach (Oct 03)