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 ]
Colin Petrie
cpetrie at ripe.net
Wed Jun 15 11:41:42 CEST 2016
On 15/06/16 05:35, Mark Tinka wrote: > I'm not sure whether operators are going to be accepting IPv4 routes > longer than a /24. It was spoken about for a long time, as we all knew > this day would come. But considering how expensive line cards are, I'm > not overly optimistic it will happen (or happen quickly, widely). We tried this out last year: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/has-the-routability-of-longer-than-24-prefixes-changed TL;DR - global usefulness of longer-than-/24 is still pretty low. Cheers Colin -- Colin Petrie Systems Engineer RIPE NCC
- 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 ]