[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 ]
Mark Tinka
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Wed Jun 15 05:35:42 CEST 2016
On 13/Jun/16 22:47, Paul Hoogsteder wrote: > > > Hello Mark, > > yes - but do remember that RIPE has allocated smaller blocks up to /29 > in certain corners of the IPv4 space: > > 91/8: /29 > 193/8: /29 > 194/7: /29 I was not aware about that. However, RIR policy is typically separate from operator policy. I'm not sure whether operators are going to be accepting IPv4 routes longer than a /24. It was spoken about for a long time, as we all knew this day would come. But considering how expensive line cards are, I'm not overly optimistic it will happen (or happen quickly, widely). Mark.
- 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 ]