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
Wed Jun 15 17:44:48 CEST 2016
On 15/Jun/16 16:58, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > 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). Exactly my reluctance to be liberal with anything longer than a /24 for IPv4. The FIB penalty has the potential to be huge. 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 ]