IPv6 /48 advertisements

Wed Dec 18 19:08:39 UTC 2013

Get another /48 for your other location.

Owen

On Dec 18, 2013, at 08:53 , 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.
>>>> 