Indeed, RFC 7454 uses "longer", rather than "larger", in this case. This has
also been my experience.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7454#section-6.1.3
On Aug 04, 2016, at 02:18 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, joel jaeggli wrote:
Folks,
During the IETF last call there were signficant concerns raised with
this draft resulting in two revisions and a change in intended status to
informational. Criticism of the proposal revolved largly along two axis.
Just to bring it up to the list as well:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-blackholing-02
3.3. Accepting Blackholed IP Prefixes
It has been observed that announcements of IP prefixes larger than
/24 for IPv4 and /48 for IPv6 are usually not accepted on the
Internet (see section 6.1.3 [RFC7454]).
The "larger" here is definitely in error. I guess it's supposed to be
"longer"?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
