IPv6 /48 advertisements

Blake Dunlap ikiris at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 16:32:16 UTC 2013


Regardless of the carriers, you'll find most ASs on the internet only
listen to /48 or larger. So even if you get your prefixes accepted by your
provider, don't assume you can get anywhere, or have your packets not fall
in to uRPF blackholes randomly without a larger aggregate announcement.

-Blake


On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Edward Dore <
edward.dore at freethought-internet.co.uk> wrote:

> If you’re talking about announcing each location separately, then RIPE
> have a couple of useful articles about prefix visibility on Ripe Labs:
>
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-a-case-study-of-ipv6-48-filtering
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dbayer/visibility-of-prefix-lengths
>
> Otherwise I guess you’ll need to talk to your chosen carrier(s) about
> aggregating your space for you, which will come down to their policies on
> what routes they will carry internally.
>
> Edward Dore
> Freethought Internet
>
> On 18 Dec 2013, at 16:11, Cliff Bowles <cliff.bowles at apollogrp.edu> wrote:
>
> > I accidentally sent this to nanog-request yesterday. I could use some
> feedback from anyone that can help, please.
> >
> > Question: will carriers accept IPv6 advertisements smaller than /48?
> >
> > Our org was approved a /36 based on number of locations. The bulk of
> those IPs will be in the data centers. As we were chopping up the address
> space, it was determined that the remote campus locations would be fine
> with a /60 per site. (16 networks of /64). There are usually less than 50
> people at the majority of these locations and only about 10 different
> functional VLANs (Voice, Data, Local Services, Wireless, Guest Wireless,
> etc...).
> >
> > Now, there has been talk about putting an internet link in every campus
> rather than back hauling it all to the data centers via MPLS. However, if
> we do this, then would we need a /48 per campus? That is massively
> wasteful, at 65,536 networks per location.  Is the /48 requirement set in
> stone? Will any carriers consider longer prefixes?
> >
> > I know some people are always saying that the old mentality of
> conserving space needs to go away, but I was bitten by that IPv4 issue back
> in the day and have done a few VLSM network overhauls. I'd rather not
> massively allocate unless it's a requirement.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > CWB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in
> error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.
> >
>
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list