This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Sergey gforgx at fotontel.ru
Sun Jun 12 21:43:38 CEST 2016

Thanks for the link!

On 06/12/16 22:36, Antonio Prado wrote:
> On 6/12/16 9:24 PM, Sergey wrote:
>> AFAIK, the minimum allocated space from RIRs is /48. Should we filter
>> prefixes longer than this?
> I do.
>
> look also at this case study of IPv6 /48 filtering
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-a-case-study-of-ipv6-48-filtering
> --
> antonio
>

-- 
Kind regards,
CTO at
*Foton Telecom CJSC (ru.fotontelecom)*
Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99
AS42861 on PeeringDB <http://as42861.peeringdb.com/>, Qrator 
<https://radar.qrator.net/as42861>, BGP.HE.NET <http://bgp.he.net/AS42861>

http://ipv6actnow.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20160612/171e9056/attachment.html>

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]