Re: What is BCP re De-Aggregation: strict filtering /48s out of /32 RIR minimums.

[Frank Habicht <geier () geier ne tz>]

On 11/14/2012 8:08 PM, Ben S. Butler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, nice.  But... It does not address the case when this is not the ISPs customers but the ISP (read content 
> provider) that operates globally but without a network interconnecting their routers.  They then advertise a /24 v4 
> and /48 v6 at each Internet exchange that they are connected to.  That is "fine" for driving router.  The "problem" 
> with this design is that they cant announce their /32 as they are not running a iBGP mesh.  I have seen a number of 
> content providers doing this by design, and in the context of their business I can understand why and see it makes 
> some sense.  The only problem comes with the prefixes ending up under the minimum prefix size for the block they are 
> in.
Yep. Ack.
For the filtering policies it'd be nice to use space from a special prefix
- like for PI assignments.
But that will drive "global" routing table size :-(
But that's what content providers who create islands are bound to do - or
is there a way around without real connectivity or tunnels?

And the "polluters" apparently don't have enough incentives or pain to void
islands...

Frank





> Now when this is a large content provider and we all want the peering, then we relax the filters, fine, but why one 
> rule for them and another for everyone else in the same /12 block.  Would it not make sense for the RIRs to assign a 
> /12 as issuable in /32, /29 to content providers who will specifically deagregate to /48 with no internal network.
>
> That solves the filtering problem, doesn't force these networks to put an iBGP network in place and lets everyone who 
> does run a network "properly" to announce the proper aggregate blocks / covering routes with more specifics if we 
> have to have them for routing purposes.
>
> A separate /12 for the "island" type networks would immediately make this problem disappear.
>
> Am I being overly simplistic?
>
> Ben
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Habicht [mailto:geier () geier ne tz] 
> Sent: 14 November 2012 16:56
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: What is BCP re De-Aggregation: strict filtering /48s out of /32 RIR minimums.
>
> On 11/14/2012 6:02 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> > and send a polite email to the POC to the effect of, "Please beware 
> > that because you have not offered a covering route matching your 
> > allocation, your IPv6 network is not reachable from ours. IPv6 is not
> > IPv4: end users requiring /48s for multihoming should get them 
> > directly from the RIR. For complete Internet connectivity, we strongly 
> > encourage you to offer a covering route."
>
> like that.
> Frank