Brian E Carpenter wrote: [..] > We can argue about the meaning of "intrinsically" I guess. But what I mean > is that they are /48s and I don't expect to see /48s routed globally.
Quickly checking http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/, taking a rather long raw-dump of it, cut&pasting it into a textfile and doing some shell magic, I got the following nice prefixes (full list below) 639 32 216 48 32 35 30 40 216 48 1 52 2 56 87 64 3 124 7 126 8 128 I therefor can thus easily conclude that filtering is not happening that heavily at all. /48's actually will EASILY pass most filters. Most of the /64's are IX prefixes btw. Until we get certificates in BGP and until routing strain is not being felt and operators don't want to filter having a /48 from any block will be easy. Most ISP's do only accept 2000::/3 indeed though. Btw, that covered 1088 different prefixes using 89441 possible paths and only 814 unique ASN's in those paths. So already there are a couple of ASN's announcing multiple prefixes: 1088*100/814 = 13.3% overhead there. If thus every active-ish ASN today got a prefix, we would end up with 40k + 13.3% =~ 53k prefixes. Still a lot lower than IPv4, but in that setup I am assuming nobody will be doing TE, and people will do TE. > Architecturally, they are certainly routeable (and so are /128s). > But I am sure they will be filtered. I have also seen /128's globally being routed over multiple ASN's see below the /128's are present. Greets, Jeroen -- 1 16 (2002::/16 :) 2 19 3 20 3 21 1 22 3 24 2 26 2 27 5 28 1 29 2 30 1 31 639 32 10 33 3 34 32 35 1 36 1 39 30 40 4 42 1 43 3 44 5 45 7 46 1 47 216 48 1 52 2 56 87 64 3 124 7 126 8 128
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
