APNIC IPv6 transit exchange
berni at birkenwald.de
Sun Dec 2 23:22:33 CET 2007
Leo Vegoda 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 you'll see that 2001:0C00:/23 is
> reserved for prefixes as long as /48. /35 is shorter than /48, so
> what's the problem here?
>  http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html
>  http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy.html#5.8
Woops, you are right. I _think_ it was /32 back then when I noticed it
first (which was before the introduction of portable assignments), but
I'm not sure anymore. I should have checked my facts first. Apologies
are in order here. OTOH, it is listed in their database as /32. Also I
did not think of assignments ("PI") because I would have expected
something like a /48 for the various APNIC entities, not /35.
So lets make v6TE the first crazy idea.
More information about the ipv6-ops