[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Thu Feb 24 22:09:08 CET 2005

On 24-feb-05, at 21:23, Daniel Roesen wrote:

>> And it's extremely wasteful to use 2^96 addresses when only 1 is 
>> needed.

> That's because of people's lazy and stupid habit of derriving policy
> from prefix length

In IPv4 it's a reasonable thing to do because enumerating all valid 
prefixes just isn't feasible.

> Unfortunately still many people think (or just
> copied some random filter recommendation) that filtering ANY /48 is a
> good thing, and don't update filters.

Hm, maybe the read http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html and 
saw:

4.3. Minimum allocation

RIRs will apply a minimum size for IPv6 allocations to facilitate 
prefix-based filtering.

The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32.

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]