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 ]

Antonio Prado thinkofit at gmail.com
Wed Jun 15 11:54:23 CEST 2016

On 6/14/16 6:23 PM, Paul Hoogsteder wrote:
> If you filter all of IPv4 at /24 then you can't reach certain
> destinations, so don't do that... 

currently I don't filter out prefixes >24bit, but if I ever needed to I
could live with that.

I would suddenly forget about 807 disaggregated IPv4 routes and 2 IPv6:

according to my pov

== IPv4 ==
/25:  54
/26:  51
/27: 147
/28: 208
/29: 347
SUM: 807
==========

== IPv6 ==
/64:   2
==========

--
antonio

• 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 ]