nanog mailing list archives
Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:17:54 +0100
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 10:01 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 08:14 PM 29-11-04 -0800, Tony Li wrote:
<SNIP>
My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one prefix per country.
<SNIP> If the customer doesn't mend their ways, then the RIR should be free to start announcing that IP block and static route it to some RIR blackhole. That would definitely get the attention of the wayward ISP/customer. Of course all this would have to be backed up by IAB+IETF as well, but I think we should learn to police ourselves before we ask for the UN/ITU to do it for us.
Announcing a blackhole by a RIR, does that mean when someone hijacks a /20 either IPv4 or IPv6, the RIR will blackhole all the more specifics? :) Would it not be better to have a *GLOBAL* "Good Prefixes" list then and of course ones private list that adds some other prefixes that you would like to see, combined filter on those. Depending on RADB or other routing databases does help a bit too btw. In other words, we will have to either extend BGP a lot or we have to come up with a new protocol to do so. "Redistribution of Cooperative Filtering Information" could help here of course, as that was where it was made for. Oh btw, some other people mentioned the 'sue' word already when a RIR might interfere in 'ongoing business from certain people :) Thus it comes down to one thing: money... Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI, (continued)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Owen DeLong (Nov 28)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Tony Li (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Robert E . Seastrom (Nov 29)
- RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Scott Morris (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeff Kell (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Wayne E. Bouchard (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Hank Nussbacher (Nov 30)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeroen Massar (Nov 30)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Daniel Senie (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI John Kristoff (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Nils Ketelsen (Nov 29)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Fred Baker (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 25)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Chris Kuethe (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 20)