Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?

• Previous message (by thread): Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
• Next message (by thread): Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

First:
> But likely if you are in that camp, just asking for address space,
> that you can use stably for a long time, from your network provider who
> provides you connectivity is a better way to go.

Um, sorry I figured by the fact that I was posting on Nanog the context was clear, but I've forgotten how Nanog is now a go-to source for home network too :(  The context was for what Nanog was originally intended for: We are provider-independent and peering around the world.

On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> A /64 is for a single link …(snip)... A /48 (or /56 for end-users for some of the RIRs) is for a single end-site

Sorry, I wasn't looking for the breakdown of expected usage. I know those maps. What I was asking was whether you can PI-route a /56 or anything less than a /48 today.  It's "nice" to have a few dozen of the entire Internet for each site, but totally unnecessary.

> If you thus have 5 end-sites, you should have room for 5 /48s and thus a
> /47 is what you can justify.

Really? One bit can flip that many ways? ;-)  I assume you mean /45, and apparently ARIN's recommended size is /44 anyway.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

• Previous message (by thread): Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
• Next message (by thread): Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]