Your TE is not the rest of the world's routing slot's problem. Get more circuits and do your te with your providers directly.
-Blake On Dec 18, 2013 10:57 AM, "Antonio M. Moreiras" <morei...@nic.br> wrote: > What do you recommend to an end user that have a direct assignment of a > /48, and would like to disaggregate as part of a traffic engineering > strategy? > > Moreiras. > > On 18/12/13 14:32, Blake Dunlap wrote: > > 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. > >>> > >
