IPv6 route annoucement

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Aug 7 22:26:26 UTC 2014

It may also help to point out to them that under ARIN policy, if you need more than a single /48, you will get at least a /44. ARIN does not issue non-nibble-aligned blocks any more. 

You can get /12, /16, /20, /24, /28, /32, /36, /40, /44, /48, but you can't get a /45, /46, or /47. 

IMHO this is a good thing as it simplifies administration, DNS, and likely RPKI. It also reduces table bloat, and human factors related events. (At 3 am it turns out most people are bad at bit math). 

If your ISP would like, I am available to provide ipv6 training or consulting. 


> On Aug 7, 2014, at 11:55, "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner at cluebyfour.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, John York wrote:
>> Hoping to not start a war...
>> We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Internet
>> connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP
>> config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned
>> /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??"
> Sounds like the ISP in question is in need of some serious IPv6 clue.  The number of hosts means nothing, in terms of BGP advertisements.  In fact, fewer announcements is better.  De-aggregation bloats the global routing table.
> Most carriers I've seen will accept IPv6 announcements as small as a /48.
> If your /44 was assigned by your RIR, and it's documented in their whois/rwhois/route registry, your ISP really doesn't have a leg to stand on, regarding not accepting your announcement.
>> Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I
>> know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that
>> assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space.
>> Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting
>> a /22 in v4?
> The largest IPv6 prefix I saw in the global Internet routing table the last time I looked (a few months ago) that wasn't for a special purpose was a /19.... ~33 million times larger than a /44.
> Your ISP should have more constructive things to do than hassling a customer about announcing a /44.
> jms

More information about the NANOG mailing list