APNIC IPv6 transit exchange

Leo Vegoda leo.vegoda at icann.org
Sun Dec 2 21:39:39 CET 2007

On 30 Nov 2007, at 02:24, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:


> is. I don't know what the intent of some APNIC ideas regarding IPv6  
> is. First they split up their /32 to several /35s announced in  
> various locations (without covering /32 aggregate) creating havoc  
> for everyone filtering on RIR allocation size (yes, 2001:dc0::/32  
> was allocated _way_ after the minimum changed from /35 to /32),

If you look at APNIC's web site[1] you'll see that 2001:0C00:/23 is  
reserved for prefixes as long as /48[2]. /35 is shorter than /48, so  
what's the problem here?


[1] http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html
[2] http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy.html#5.8

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list