[ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Wed Jun 15 16:58:00 CEST 2016
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, at 18:23, Paul Hoogsteder wrote: > If you filter all of IPv4 at /24 then you can't reach certain > destinations, so don't do that... It's easy to make exceptions up to /29 > for the three /8 where these small announcements come from. Hi, The damage potential of accepting "up to /29 from 3 distinct /8" is huge. Please remember that one single /8 can contain up to 2 millions /29. If today's count of "/25 up to /29" is still quite low, this would open the way to hell on transfer market (which is self-limiting to /24), with possibility to go into "portable adresses" land (like in phone number portability). In IPv6 land situation is even worse (let's just hope we won't reach the 200-300K v6 routes very soon). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]