Regardless of the carriers, you'll find most ASs on the internet only listen to /48 or larger. So even if you get your prefixes accepted by your provider, don't assume you can get anywhere, or have your packets not fall in to uRPF blackholes randomly without a larger aggregate announcement.
-Blake On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Edward Dore < edward.d...@freethought-internet.co.uk> wrote: > If you’re talking about announcing each location separately, then RIPE > have a couple of useful articles about prefix visibility on Ripe Labs: > > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-a-case-study-of-ipv6-48-filtering > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dbayer/visibility-of-prefix-lengths > > Otherwise I guess you’ll need to talk to your chosen carrier(s) about > aggregating your space for you, which will come down to their policies on > what routes they will carry internally. > > Edward Dore > Freethought Internet > > On 18 Dec 2013, at 16:11, Cliff Bowles <cliff.bow...@apollogrp.edu> wrote: > > > I accidentally sent this to nanog-request yesterday. I could use some > feedback from anyone that can help, please. > > > > Question: will carriers accept IPv6 advertisements smaller than /48? > > > > Our org was approved a /36 based on number of locations. The bulk of > those IPs will be in the data centers. As we were chopping up the address > space, it was determined that the remote campus locations would be fine > with a /60 per site. (16 networks of /64). There are usually less than 50 > people at the majority of these locations and only about 10 different > functional VLANs (Voice, Data, Local Services, Wireless, Guest Wireless, > etc...). > > > > Now, there has been talk about putting an internet link in every campus > rather than back hauling it all to the data centers via MPLS. However, if > we do this, then would we need a /48 per campus? That is massively > wasteful, at 65,536 networks per location. Is the /48 requirement set in > stone? Will any carriers consider longer prefixes? > > > > I know some people are always saying that the old mentality of > conserving space needs to go away, but I was bitten by that IPv4 issue back > in the day and have done a few VLSM network overhauls. I'd rather not > massively allocate unless it's a requirement. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > CWB > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in > error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system. > > > >
