On 2010.03.16 21:06, Steve Bertrand wrote: > On 2010.03.16 17:01, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> >> >> On 03/16/2010 07:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote: >>> Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up. >>> >>> General responses (some that didn't make it to the list): >>> - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it." >>> - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's a >>> bigger assignment >>> - /52 (or /56) on smaller assignments for conservation if it makes you >>> feel better >>> - Open question on whether byte/octet-boundary assignment (/56 vs /52) is >>> better for some reason >>> >>> I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. I've seen >>> discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" (widely >>> deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be? >> >> I filter at /48. > > Although I'm small and insignificant, I do too. > >> I would consider filtering on something shorter for >> assignments of /32 or shorter if there were obvious bad behaver's. We do >> advertise more specific /36s but we also have the covering /32. > > I think that it's going to filter down into a situation where people who > can allow a prefix might change their policy, given that the originator > is known. That doesn't mean that the next person in the chain will > accept it though. > > For me, I'll accept /48's until one of two things happen: > > - the RIRs decide that they won't be handing them out anymore > - that my routers can't handle the number of prefixes > > Other than that, I'd like to see /48 become a standard for acceptance.
err... if the /48 was allocated/assigned from your local RIR from a block that was originally designed for such purposes. Otherwise, I don't blame anyone who is selective on filtering above /48 when the original alloc was /32 (or larger). Steve