IPv6 /48 advertisements

Blake Dunlap ikiris at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 17:19:01 UTC 2013


Your TE is not the rest of the world's routing slot's problem. Get more
circuits and do your te with your providers directly.

-Blake
On Dec 18, 2013 10:57 AM, "Antonio M. Moreiras" <moreiras at nic.br> wrote:

> What do you recommend to an end user that have a direct assignment of a
> /48, and would like to disaggregate as part of a traffic engineering
> strategy?
>
> Moreiras.
>
> On 18/12/13 14:32, Blake Dunlap wrote:
> > 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