Get another /48 for your other location. Owen
On Dec 18, 2013, at 08:53 , 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. >>>>
