nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc.
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:33:56 +1300
The assumption that networks will filter /48s is not the whole story.The RIRs giving out /48s do so from a single pool that only contains / 48 assignments. The RIRs give out /32s from a pool containing /32 or shorter prefixes (ie /31, /30, etc. etc).
You will find that most networks filtering /48s allow them from the pool with only /48s in it.
The root DNS servers are in /48s.If you can justify getting a /32, then I suggest you do so, but if not then don't worry, a /48 will work just fine. The networks that do filter you will pretty soon adapt I expect.
Insert routing table explosion religious war here, with snipes from people saying that we need a new routing system, etc. etc.
So with that in mind, do your concerns from your original post still make sense?
-- Nathan Ward
Current thread:
- IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. George Bonser (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. Nathan Ward (Dec 22)
- RE: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. George Bonser (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. Nathan Ward (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. Michael Dillon (Dec 24)
- RE: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. George Bonser (Dec 24)
- RE: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. George Bonser (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. eric clark (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. Shane Ronan (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. Nathan Ward (Dec 22)
- RE: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. George Bonser (Dec 22)
- Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. Nathan Ward (Dec 22)
- Message not available
- RE: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. George Bonser (Dec 23)