nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:50:07 -0700
Kevin Loch wrote:
Adrian Chadd wrote:On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes: 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16 but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48. And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care about IPv6 TE.I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start" policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being TE routes. Speaking of TE, it's going to be interesting to see how we deal with that. We can't expect everyone to accept any /48 that gets announced. I'm still waiting for the first time someone blows up the Internet by announcing all 65536 /48's in their /32. I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet. Stricter use of the IRR might help if there wasn't rampant auto proxy registering going on. RPKI may be the answer since that can't be proxy-registered. That would at least mitigate router bugs and carelessness. The issue of what intentional TE routes are seen as "acceptable" is another issue.
I would love to see TE die a painful death. Maybe someone announcing 65536 routes will bring it to a swift end. ~Seth
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Bret Clark (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Mark Andrews (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy David Conrad (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Owen DeLong (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy David Conrad (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Christopher Morrow (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Adrian Chadd (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Kevin Loch (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Nathan Ward (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Leo Bicknell (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Adrian Chadd (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Christopher Morrow (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Leo Bicknell (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Joel Jaeggli (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Jeff McAdams (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Nathan Ward (Oct 12)