[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Longer prefixes

To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Longer prefixes
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:31:47 +0000
In-reply-to: <7t5vfy9wrvk.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com>
Mail-followup-to: multi6@ops.ietf.org
References: <BFB88769-5D54-11D7-B5E2-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <7t5vfy9wrvk.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

So do you filter the /35's and above?

On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:05:51AM +0000, Ole Troan wrote:
> > As there was some discussions in Atlanta on wether longer prefixes is
> > actually in use today. This is just the first page of sh ipv6 route on
> > one of my home routers :
> 
> ipv6-lab-gw>show ipv6 route summary
> IPv6 Routing Table Summary - 730 entries
>   167 local, 84 connected, 38 static, 6 RIP, 435 BGP 0 IS-IS, 0 OSPF
>   Number of prefixes:
>     /8: 1, /10: 1, /16: 1, /24: 47, /28: 49, /32: 207, /33: 2, /34: 2
>     /35: 54, /36: 2, /40: 6, /42: 1, /44: 4, /48: 94, /64: 85, /96: 1
>     /112: 1, /125: 1, /126: 4, /127: 1, /128: 166
> 
> /ot

References:
- Longer prefixes
  - From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
- Re: Longer prefixes
  - From: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Architectural approaches to multi6
Next by Date: Re: Architectural approaches to multi6
Previous by thread: Re: Longer prefixes
Next by thread: Re: Longer prefixes
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread