Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

[Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven () cb3rob net>]

well... we actually intend to just announce /64's and smaller as well.

i don't see the problem with that.

just get routers with enough memory...

i'm rather for a "specification" of a minimum supported route-size (let's 
say something along the lines of 64GB in each border router, it's 2012 
after all ;) than for putting limits on the prefix sized announced so "old 
junk" can still stay connected to the internet.

let's say, there is 6 billion people in the world.. if they all have 1 
route table entry (average ;) i see no technical limitations on anything 
produced AFTER 2008 actually.

stop buying crap without sufficient ram, or just scrap it and get new 
stuff. (which you're going to have to do to efficiently route ipv6 
-anyway- at some point, as your old stuff, simply doesn't even 
loadbalance trunked ethernet ports properly (layer 3 based) ;)

we can't limit the expansion of the internet, and the independance of it's 
users, just because some people refuse to part from their cisco 7200 vxr.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:52 AM, George Bonser <gbonser () seven com> wrote:
> > > I'm well into my second decade of having a v6 prefix in the dfz and am
> > > passingly familiar with powers of two...
> > Point is that expecting people globally to take a /48 from PA space probably isn't a realistic expectation.
>
> Exactly....
> What's more realistic is you have to get a single /48 of PI space for
> people to carry that globally.
>
> And if you have 5 discontiguous networks, what the RIRs should do is
> carve a /44 out for your
> present and future PI allocations   and issue you    the  8  /48s;
> the PI /48 routing slots
> that you have justified need for --  arranged so that they fall within
> the same /45.
>
>
> --
> -JH