North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
- From: Leo Bicknell
- Date: Sat Oct 03 15:36:02 2009
In a message written on Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 03:01:42AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Why the whole /16 rather than just that /29 and a few other blocks set
> aside for /48s? There are a lot of /48s in a /16, so protecting
> against someone accidentally deaggregating their allocated /32 into /
> 48s seems legitimate.
Our track record of keeping up with these lists as in industry in
IPv4 is pretty poor, I see no reason to think IPv6 is any better.
The more restrictive, the greater the chance of inadvertently filtering
something you should not.
The problem of a peer deaggregating too many routes to you is better
handled with max-prefix settings. We've had this technology for a long
time, and if you're really concerned about getting an extra 10k routes
from a peer use max-prefix, not some draconian, static, never updated
prefix filter.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
pgp00016.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|
