Greetings NANOG,
I've always been under the impression its best practice to only announce
prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
And if That's the case, What's the magic number? /32? /48? /64?
Nick Olse
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Nick Olsen wrote:
I've always been under the impression its best practice to only announce
prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
And if That's the case, What's the magic number? /3
Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(
-Original Message-
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:34 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011,
follow their lead.
--
TTFN,
patrick
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:34 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
>
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Nick Olsen wrote:
>
>>
> From: Kate Gerry
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:39 AM
> To: 'Justin M. Streiner'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: IPv6 Prefix announcing
>
> Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being
> /32... :(
>
That might be true
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> Greetings NANOG,
> I've always been under the impression its best practice to only announce
> prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
> I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
> And if That's
ugh, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:34 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
&g
On 4/26/2011 09:39, Kate Gerry wrote:
> Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(
>
This is becoming the exception now, not the rule.
Last year I was fighting with Verizon about their refusal to carry /48s.
That, together with the impasse of figuring out how
> -Original Message-
> From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:52 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
>
> On 4/26/2011 09:39, Kate Gerry wrote:
> > Funny enough, some carriers actually requ
9 matches
Mail list logo
