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] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC

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

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Wed Jun 15 11:59:42 CEST 2016

On 15/Jun/16 11:39, Colin Petrie wrote:

> 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.

Thanks, Colin.

On my side, I'm not immediately keen to fill FIB slots with >/24 or >/48.

But I'll keep an eye on what the rest of the community does and adjust
accordingly if it makes sense.

Mark.

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

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

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]