nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:22:15 -0400
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:46:00 EDT, Kevin Loch said:
Adrian Chadd wrote:On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes: 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16 but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48. And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care about IPv6 TE.I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start" policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being TE routes.
Exactly. We have 4 prefixes only because we got slow-started and similar hysterical raisins, we don't use those for TE at all. If we wanted to do any globally visible TE that actually made a difference, we'd have to announce a more-specific out of one of the /16s anyhow, since that's where all our traffic generators/sinks are (and probably a matching more-specific out of our v6 /48). So we're always going to have 4+N on the IPv4 and 1+N on the IPv6 side. (And if we'd gotten more address space for that wireless net, we'd be at 5+N rather than 4+N).
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Mark Andrews (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy David Conrad (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Owen DeLong (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy David Conrad (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Christopher Morrow (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Adrian Chadd (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Kevin Loch (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Nathan Ward (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Leo Bicknell (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Adrian Chadd (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Christopher Morrow (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Leo Bicknell (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Joel Jaeggli (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Jeff McAdams (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Nathan Ward (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Owen DeLong (Oct 12)