APNIC IPv6 transit exchange

Bernhard Schmidt 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[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?
> Leo
> [1] http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html
> [2] 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 mailing list