nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 deagg
From: md () Linux IT (Marco d'Itri)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:46:29 +0100
On Feb 20, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:
Is deaggregation inherently undesirable? In some RIR LIR will not get new
No. Excessive deaggregation is undesirable, but we lack a method to teach routers to enforce this subtlety and maybe also a wide agreement on what is excessive.
allocation, just because LIR lacks INET connectivity between their datacenter or pop. This wasn't issue in IPv4, because you actually could reasonably fill your IPv4 allocation and were eligible for another allocation for your discontinuous locations.
But at least in the RIPE region this can be easily solved by deaggregating /32s out of your /29. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: v6 deagg, (continued)
- Re: v6 deagg Christopher Morrow (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Owen DeLong (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg Christopher Morrow (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg Christopher Morrow (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Saku Ytti (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Nikolay Shopik (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Jack Bates (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Måns Nilsson (Feb 21)
- Re: v6 deagg Sander Steffann (Feb 21)
- Re: v6 deagg Måns Nilsson (Feb 21)
- Re: v6 deagg Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Randy Bush (Feb 23)
- Re: v6 deagg William Herrin (Feb 23)
- Re: v6 deagg Sander Steffann (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg William Herrin (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg Jack Bates (Feb 26)