Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

Mark Newton wrote:

I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway? We've all decided that we "can live without" any network smaller than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to universal reachability. What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes from saying, "Bugg'rit, I'm not going to accept anything smaller than a /18"?

Hopefully, customers. Furthermore, such a policy will also do little to encourage IPv4 conservation. We're already in a situation where for each routing policy, folk are recommended to use /20 or smaller prefixes (per routing policy) when applying for PI, despite the fact that a /23 might suit their multi-homed, end-site network, in order to help beat-the-filters. -a