> -----Original Message----- > From: Nathan Ward [mailto:na...@daork.net] > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 6:34 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc. > > The assumption that networks will filter /48s is not the whole story. ... > You will find that most networks filtering /48s allow them from the > pool with only /48s in it.
That makes perfect sense. > If you can justify getting a /32, then I suggest you do so, but if not > then don't worry, a /48 will work just fine. The networks that do > filter you will pretty soon adapt I expect. I can't in good conscience justify a /32. That is just too much space. I believe I can, however, justify a separate /48 in Europe and APAC with my various offices and data centers in that region coming from the /48 for that region. > Insert routing table explosion religious war here, with snipes from > people saying that we need a new routing system, etc. etc. Eh, it isn't so bad. I could think of some ways things could have been better (e.g. providers use a 32bit ASN as the prefix with a few "magic" destination prefixes for multicast, anycast, futurecast and multihomed end users use a 16-bit regional prefix with a 16-bit ASN as a 32-bit prefix) but we are too far down the road to complain too much about that sort of stuff. > So with that in mind, do your concerns from your original post still > make sense? Thanks, Nathan, and let's say that I am somewhat less apprehensive than I was. George
