Re: Minimum IPv6 size

[Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>]

In a message written on Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 03:01:42AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> 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.

Our track record of keeping up with these lists as in industry in
IPv4 is pretty poor, I see no reason to think IPv6 is any better.
The more restrictive, the greater the chance of inadvertently filtering
something you should not.

The problem of a peer deaggregating too many routes to you is better
handled with max-prefix settings.  We've had this technology for a long
time, and if you're really concerned about getting an extra 10k routes
from a peer use max-prefix, not some draconian, static, never updated
prefix filter.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Attachment: _bin
Description: