[6bone] 2001:478:: as /48

[Bill Manning]

% > From: Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
% > Subject: 2001:478::  as /48
% > To: 6bone@ISI.EDU
% > Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
% > 
% > this prefix has/is being carved up into /48 and /64 subnets for
% > use at exchange points and other infrastructure support services.
% 
% IX Prefixes by the RIR's come out of:
%  - 2001:7f8::/32 
%  - 2001:504::/32 
%  - 2001:7fa::/32 

	Yup. and this prefix predates all of them.  One could argue
	that once the RIRs saw the need and that it was being filled
	elsewhere, that they created polcies so they could also offer
	that service.
 
% Which RFC/draft/... made this prefix so special ?

	None. Why is this concept in the perview of the IETF?

% > Do not expect to see it aggregated. 
% 
% I would suggest that if you want it to be routable that one
% entity announces the /32 that is not going to be filtered.
% This way the more specific will still allow it to be reachable.

	Well, since they are spread over a wide area (globally)
	and there is no single transit provider that touches all
	the exchanges, such aggregation would be problematic.
	See the previous post on routability.

% Btw what is the status of 6bone's ip6.arpa?

	One might check in w/ the v6ops WG of the IETF.

% 
% Greets,
%  Jeroen
% 
% -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
% Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
% Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
% 
% iQA/AwUBP1c5GimqKFIzPnwjEQKLxgCcCW3SqQmuiMcWNggPL5xrI2p5/h8AnieJ
% Z9hjHnojYYQgP+cn1duzKiol
% =rpWH
% -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
% 
% _______________________________________________
% 6bone mailing list
% 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
% http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
% 
[End of raw data]


-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).