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 ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Wed Jun 15 16:58:00 CEST 2016
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, at 18:23, Paul Hoogsteder wrote: > If you filter all of IPv4 at /24 then you can't reach certain > destinations, so don't do that... It's easy to make exceptions up to /29 > for the three /8 where these small announcements come from. Hi, The damage potential of accepting "up to /29 from 3 distinct /8" is huge. Please remember that one single /8 can contain up to 2 millions /29. If today's count of "/25 up to /29" is still quite low, this would open the way to hell on transfer market (which is self-limiting to /24), with possibility to go into "portable adresses" land (like in phone number portability). In IPv6 land situation is even worse (let's just hope we won't reach the 200-300K v6 routes very soon). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
- 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 ]