Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Kate Gerry wrote:

> Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(

Vote with your wallet.

Some carriers would prefer if only transit free networks were allowed to originate routes.  Doesn't mean you should 
follow their lead.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner () cluebyfour org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:34 AM
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
>
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Nick Olsen wrote:
>
> > I've always been under the impression its best practice to only 
> > announce prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
> > I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
> > And if That's the case, What's the magic number? /32? /48? /64?
>
> You're likely to get different answers to this, but the 'magic number' 
> appears to be /48.  Looking in the v6 BGP table, you will likely find smaller prefixes than that, but a number of the 
> major carriers seem to be settling on /48 as the smallest prefix they will accept.  /48 is also the smallest block 
> most of the RIRs will assign to end-users.
>
> jms