tbh, this is something i didn't even think about...and i don't know why they chose to go with /48.
https://www.peeringdb.com/private/exchange_view.php?id=347 PS: sorry for the previous "pgp" email. -- Tassos Gert Doering wrote on 30/1/2013 21:09: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:57:25PM +0200, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote: >> Yes, that's the LAN of the local IX. >> >> interface TenGigE0/2/0/3.290851 >> description ** GRIX ** >> ipv4 address x.x.x.x/24 >> ipv6 address 2001:648:2100::x/48 > This... is amazing. And then people complain that a /64 is too big for > a single LAN. > > I'd expect more bugs and unexpected behaviour - implementations get tested > with "LAN = /64", and sometimes with "/112" or "/124", but I'd expect > most interesting results for connected networks with shorter masks. > > gert _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
