<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
>> I specifically said I don't see a valid use case for *globally*<br>
> advertising </div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
>> more specifics. </div></blockquote><div><ul><li>Single provider or enterprise allocated a /32</li><li>Multiple independent global locations eg. PNG, India, New Zealand, US</li><li>Each site advertising out a /36</li>
<li>Requirement for each site is too large for a /48 allocation.</li><li>Advert of a covering may have some very undesirable results</li></ul><ul><li>Most networks it will work today will they'll accept the routes in the above approach. </li>
<li>The approach has some parallels IPv4. People are going to do this and take v4 practice and apply to v6 if within general community guidelines - and why not, why re-invent the wheel?</li><li>Networks likes yours be they teir2/3/4 that don't accept a full table in the v4 world would have a covering route with ACLs potentially used for bogons. Why not for v6?</li>
<li>What's your suggestion as to BCP for the scenario?</li></ul></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
</div>Well, the consistent global policy is that prefixes up to the minimum-allocation size<br>
of the RIRs are accepted.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>Can't say I agree with your statement.</div><div><br></div><div>Kind Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Mick</div><div> </div></div><br>