On (2015-02-20 12:07 +0900), Randy Bush wrote: Hey,
in a discussion with some fellow researchers, the subject of ipv6 deaggregation arose; will it be less or more than we see in ipv4?
Is deaggregation inherently undesirable? In some RIR LIR will not get new 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. Clearly there are valid routing reasons why >1 network from single company has to appears in DFZ. Having RIR allocate another network or having LIR deaggregate have exact same cost to RIB/FIB, yet they are different. Multiple allocation gives additional scrutiny, network must pass RIR policy to be able to exist. Deagrregation is entirely uncontrolled, we don't know from route object the reason for it, valid reasons and invalid reasons are grouped in same pool. What is the correct solution here? Deaggregate or allocate space you don't need? Or some others solution, should route object creation be limited to LIR and be controlled by specific policy? It would allow inject information about the reason for it. Correct solution is not to use some so called 'strict' ipv6 filters, which break Internet, by not allowing discontinuous pops having connectivity. -- ++ytti