Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations

[Steve Bertrand <steve () ibctech ca>]

On 2010.03.16 21:06, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.03.16 17:01, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> > On 03/16/2010 07:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote:
> > > Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up.
> > >
> > > General responses (some that didn't make it to the list):
> > >   - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it."
> > >   - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's a
> > > bigger assignment
> > >   - /52 (or /56) on smaller assignments for conservation if it makes you
> > > feel better
> > >   - Open question on whether byte/octet-boundary assignment (/56 vs /52) is
> > > better for some reason
> > >
> > > I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering.  I've seen
> > > discussions from /48 down to /54.  Any feel for what the "standard" (widely
> > > deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be?
> >
> > I filter at /48. 
>
> Although I'm small and insignificant, I do too.
>
> > I would consider filtering on something shorter for
> > assignments of /32 or shorter if there were obvious bad behaver's. We do
> > advertise more specific /36s but we also have the covering /32.
>
> I think that it's going to filter down into a situation where people who
> can allow a prefix might change their policy, given that the originator
> is known. That doesn't mean that the next person in the chain will
> accept it though.
>
> For me, I'll accept /48's until one of two things happen:
>
> - the RIRs decide that they won't be handing them out anymore
> - that my routers can't handle the number of prefixes
>
> Other than that, I'd like to see /48 become a standard for acceptance.

err... if the /48 was allocated/assigned from your local RIR from a
block that was originally designed for such purposes.

Otherwise, I don't blame anyone who is selective on filtering above /48
when the original alloc was /32 (or larger).

Steve