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

Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?

Subject: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:06:09 -0400 (EDT)
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> 
> 
> so there really is no drawback from getting the /44, and having
> enough space to not have to worry about it in the future.
> 
> 
> It's only a worry if you can only route /48s, which was my question.
> And seriously, we're going to be banging around in the emptiness as
> compared to our IPv4 allocations. :)

You can route /48 or shorter (larger)

How many sites do you have? If less than 192, /44 is perfect, unless some of those sites require more than a /48. Then, it gets more complicated :-)

-Randy

Follow-Ups:
- Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
  - From: streiner at cluebyfour.org (Justin M. Streiner)
- Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
  - From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)

References:
- Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
  - From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)

Prev by Date: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
Next by Date: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
Previous by thread: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
Next by thread: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread