On 1/30/15 8:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote: > >> It also sounds like the Internet (aka the upstream/Tier 1 carriers) don't >> want me to advertise anything longer than my /32 into BGPv6. Is that >> true? >> (I'm getting that from the spamming comments made by others) Am I >> supposed to be asking ARIN for a /32 for each region that I want to >> address? (They turned down my request for an increase to a /28 last >> year) > > Not true. A peek at the global IPv6 routing table shows lots of > prefixes that are smaller than /32. One of the hopes with larger > allocations and assignments was that there would be less bloat in the > global IPv6 routing table because networks would need to announce fewer > prefixes. How well that will hold up in practice remains to be seen :)
Direct assignments exist down to /48s so you can expect to have to accept announcements down to that size given that they can't concievably be covered by an aggregate. >> As far as the v6 to v4 translation is concerned, I'm looking at that for >> the future - for the time being, we will be dual-stacked. However, if we >> move into a new area, based on our current IPv4 inventory, I don't really >> have enough to assign to each new customer, so I was looking for ways to >> allow those customers access to properties that are still IPv4 only. Is >> there yet another way to do that? > > If you assign a customer IPv6 space only, a translation mechanism is > needed to allow that customer to reach Internet destinations that only > speak IPv4 today. There's no way around that. > > jms >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
