On 17 Dec 2015, at 17:38, Tom Hill wrote:
On 17/12/15 13:51, Matthew Walster wrote:
2. Those are some really bad filtering examples, and if you just used
it
as a factsheet there are missing entries which you may falsely assume
don't matter. Filtering all >/48 v6 prefixes seems a little odd too
--
why that size?
I can't think of a reason why anyone would want an IPv6 prefix longer
than a 48, in the DFZ. A-la filtering v4 prefixes greater than 24.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but so far do this has not raised
issues at $work.
Quite, although do bear in mind that there may be good reasons to accept
longer prefixes from other (i.e., non-upstream) peers and to announce
them also.
one-size-fits-all isn’t necessarily the best policy.
d.
