In a message written on Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 03:01:42AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote: > Why the whole /16 rather than just that /29 and a few other blocks set > aside for /48s? There are a lot of /48s in a /16, so protecting > against someone accidentally deaggregating their allocated /32 into / > 48s seems legitimate.
Our track record of keeping up with these lists as in industry in
IPv4 is pretty poor, I see no reason to think IPv6 is any better.
The more restrictive, the greater the chance of inadvertently filtering
something you should not.
The problem of a peer deaggregating too many routes to you is better
handled with max-prefix settings. We've had this technology for a long
time, and if you're really concerned about getting an extra 10k routes
from a peer use max-prefix, not some draconian, static, never updated
prefix filter.
--
Leo Bicknell - [email protected] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
pgpaZsC6l4Xr8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
