Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: IPv6 Prefix announcing
From: "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" <mksmith () adhost com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:17:04 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:sethm () rollernet us]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:52 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Prefix announcing

On 4/26/2011 09:39, Kate Gerry wrote:
Funny enough, some carriers actually require the 'smallest' as being /32... :(

This is becoming the exception now, not the rule.

Last year I was fighting with Verizon about their refusal to carry /48s.
That, together with the impasse of figuring out how to put dual stack
IPv6 on an Ethernet port (it was delivered as IPv4 only multiple times),
I never accepted it and went with a competitor who got it right the
first time. However, I've had several sources tell me Verizon has since
backpedaled and now accepts /48s.


*> 2001:67C:120::/48    2001:504:16::1B1B       150      0 6939 701 12702 43751 6716 i


  By Date           By Thread  

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