New RIPE allocations outside 2001::/16 - filter update time!

[Joe Abley]

On 2 May 2005, at 08:05, Pim van Pelt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> | I think it makes sense to differentiate between accepting /48s from
> | peers and accepting them from transits. I'd be happy to have a bunch
> | of /48s in my routing table that make traffic towards people within
> | the region flow more optimally, but I'm really not interested in /48s
> | from multiple timezones away.
> I agree.

To pick a "/48s are bad" advocate at random, the following are examples 
of legitimate /48 advertisements from ARIN space that you might 
consider permitting:

2001:500::/48 -- F root nameserver
2001:500:1::/48 -- H root nameserver
2001:500:2::/48 -- C root nameserver
2001:500:3::/48 -- L root nameserver

The other RIRs also have policies which allow them to assign PI /48s 
for critical infrastructure (not just exchange points).

I realise that most people in this thread are probably aware of these 
micro-allocations, but to the casual observer that may not be obvious. 
So, for the record, some /48s are good :-)


Joe