nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 route annoucement
From: Stuart Sheldon <stu () actusa net>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:05:50 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 No, it's not mis-sized. And no, you should advertise it all. I would advertise the /44 without reservation. Stuart Sheldon ACT USA AS22937 On 08/07/2014 01:58 PM, John York wrote:
Hoping to not start a war... We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Internet connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??" Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space. Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting a /22 in v4? Thanks, John -- John York Information Technology | Network Administrator Phone: 615-399-7000 x:333 Griffin Technology 2030 Lindell Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 USA
- --
My pockets are empty though my wife has sent me to the store for some
cigarettes and bread... I started walkin there, got as far as the
square, then the smell of beer went to my head... The thing about
beer, it can make a man hear, voices from days long since past, and
with every third drink, it will make you think that your youth will
always last...
-- BR549 - "Lifetime to Prove Lyrics"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=rcZu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Current thread:
- IPv6 route annoucement John York (Aug 07)
- Re: IPv6 route annoucement Stuart Sheldon (Aug 07)
- Re: IPv6 route annoucement Corey Touchet (Aug 07)
- Re: IPv6 route annoucement Justin M. Streiner (Aug 07)
- RE: IPv6 route annoucement John York (Aug 07)
- Re: IPv6 route annoucement Owen DeLong (Aug 07)
- Re: IPv6 route annoucement Mark Andrews (Aug 07)
