% Bill Manning wrote: % > /35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries... % > 4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host % > -might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even % > overkill... :) % % Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why can't we % designate a block for microallocations, within which prefix length filters % aren't applied? The number of routes in the DFZ is the same either way; % is there any technical reason why /64 or /128 prefixes, or /32 in IPv4, % can't be used? I'm not a routing person, so apologies if this is somehow % unspeakably dumb. % % -zefram "we" can. There is no reason why... routing table slots are routing table slots. It does place the onus on the ISPs to be more vigorous in tracking what they will and will not accept or propogate. Now, they tend to depend on RIRs to set their routing policies for them... :) --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).