Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:44:24 -0400

On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Kate Gerry wrote:

Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(

Vote with your wallet.

Some carriers would prefer if only transit free networks were allowed to originate routes.  Doesn't mean you should 
follow their lead.


-----Original Message-----
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner () cluebyfour org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:34 AM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Nick Olsen wrote:

I've always been under the impression its best practice to only 
announce prefixes of a /24 and above when it comes to IPv4 and BGP.
I was wondering if something similar had been agreed upon regarding IPv6.
And if That's the case, What's the magic number? /32? /48? /64?

You're likely to get different answers to this, but the 'magic number' 
appears to be /48.  Looking in the v6 BGP table, you will likely find smaller prefixes than that, but a number of the 
major carriers seem to be settling on /48 as the smallest prefix they will accept.  /48 is also the smallest block 
most of the RIRs will assign to end-users.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]