-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [This should go to v6ops@ or ipv6@ietf :) ] Zefram wrote: > 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? That would be the best solution, make it documented and publically known. > 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. Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do anything smaller than that. Ofcourse one can use /128 routes, and /64's etc. But because of anycast you don't want to use /127's though. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@xxxxxxxxx / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP9T1TSmqKFIzPnwjEQIN7wCfe9bK+T1q2q8R1RK/tCdPlQuEVt0AoLxW loVQEyBt+J9PubZVG1MLxQ0O =pMGw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----