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

Thu Oct 11 22:09:59 UTC 2012

--- rcarpen at network1.net wrote:
From: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen at network1.net>
> --- jrhett at netconsonance.com wrote:
> From: Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com>

> I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6.  Justification for the
> IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we
> need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't
> effectively announce anything smaller than a /48.  Is this still
> true?
> 
> Is this likely to change in the immediate future, or do I need to ask
> for a /44?
> ----------------------------------------------------

> A /48 is 65536 /64s and a /44 is 16x65536 /64s.  If you
> only need one subnet (1 subnet = 1 /64), why would you
> try to get 16x65536 subnets, rather than the 65536 you
> have in the /48?
-------------------------------------------------------

He said it was for multiple sites. 
---------------------------------------------------

DOH!  
Note to self: focus on the outage and don't respond to NANOG 
while troubleshooting.  ;-)

scott