nanog mailing list archives
Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
From: George Herbert <george.herbert () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:40:34 -0800
If the LIRs cannot get separate allocations from the RIR (and separate ASNs) for this usage, something is wrong. We want to make things as simple and efficient as possible, but no simpler or more efficient, because the curves go back up again at that point, and we all suffer. -george On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Sander Steffann <sander () steffann nl> wrote:
Hi,What should happen is this "quasi-legitimate" method of multi-homing should just be declared illegitimate for IPv6, to facilitate stricter filtering. Instead, what should happen is the multi-homing should be required to fit into one of 3 scenarios, so any announcement with an IPv6 prefix length other than the RIR-allocated/assigned PA or PI block size can be treated as TE and summarily discarded or prioritizes when table resources are scarce.Splitting the allocation can be done for many reasons. There are known cases where one LIR operates multiple separate networks, each with a separate routing policy. They cannot get multiple allocations from the RIR and they cannot announce the whole allocation as a whole because of the separate routing policies (who are sometimes required legally, for example when an NREN has both a commercial and an educational network). Deaggregating to /48's is not a good idea, but giving an LIR a few bits (something like 3 or 4) to deaggregate makes sense. - Sander
-- -george william herbert george.herbert () gmail com
Current thread:
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary, (continued)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Bernhard Schmidt (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 09)
- RE: filtering /48 is going to be necessary George Bonser (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 09)
- RE: filtering /48 is going to be necessary George Bonser (Mar 09)
- RE: filtering /48 is going to be necessary George Bonser (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 10)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Jimmy Hess (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Sander Steffann (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Jimmy Hess (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary George Herbert (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 09)
- RE: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Leo Vegoda (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Joel jaeggli (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Randy Bush (Mar 09)
- RE: filtering /48 is going to be necessary George Bonser (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Joel jaeggli (Mar 09)
- RE: filtering /48 is going to be necessary George Bonser (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Jimmy Hess (Mar 10)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Sven Olaf Kamphuis (Mar 10)