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: