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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]
Mark Tinka
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Sun Jun 12 22:06:21 CEST 2016
On 12/Jun/16 21:24, Sergey wrote: > Hi, > > Looking at the BGP table I see stuff like this, not even /64: > > 2001:218:2000:5000::3a0/126 > *[BGP/170] 2d 08:02:02, localpref 180 > AS path: 12714 31133 3491 10026 I, > validation-state: unverified > > to 2a00:d18:fe03:fefe:a76d::1 via ae2.3386 > > As we can see this wasn't rejected by 3 AS-es. > > AFAIK, the minimum allocated space from RIRs is /48. Should we filter > prefixes longer than this? Yes. A lot of service providers have poor filtering habits, accepting IPv4 prefixes as long as /32, IPv6 prefixes as long as /128, and reserved address space that should not be visible on the Internet. Do yourself a solid and filter. Mark.
- 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 ]