IPv6 route annoucement
Hoping to not start a war... We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Internet connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??" Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space. Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting a /22 in v4? Thanks, John -- John York Information Technology | Network Administrator Phone: 615-399-7000 x:333 Griffin Technology 2030 Lindell Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 USA
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, John York wrote:
Hoping to not start a war...
We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Internet connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??"
Sounds like the ISP in question is in need of some serious IPv6 clue. The number of hosts means nothing, in terms of BGP advertisements. In fact, fewer announcements is better. De-aggregation bloats the global routing table. Most carriers I've seen will accept IPv6 announcements as small as a /48. If your /44 was assigned by your RIR, and it's documented in their whois/rwhois/route registry, your ISP really doesn't have a leg to stand on, regarding not accepting your announcement.
Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space. Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting a /22 in v4?
The largest IPv6 prefix I saw in the global Internet routing table the last time I looked (a few months ago) that wasn't for a special purpose was a /19.... ~33 million times larger than a /44. Your ISP should have more constructive things to do than hassling a customer about announcing a /44. jms
Yeah, we're good in WHOIS, we're trying to announce only the aggregate, I think we have all our ducks in a row. Thanks to all who replied on- and off-list with your input. I'll go back to the ISP with the info from you guys and girls, and hopefully they'll listen to reason. John -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Justin M. Streiner Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 1:56 PM To: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: IPv6 route annoucement On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, John York wrote:
Hoping to not start a war...
We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Internet connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??"
Sounds like the ISP in question is in need of some serious IPv6 clue. The number of hosts means nothing, in terms of BGP advertisements. In fact, fewer announcements is better. De-aggregation bloats the global routing table. Most carriers I've seen will accept IPv6 announcements as small as a /48. If your /44 was assigned by your RIR, and it's documented in their whois/rwhois/route registry, your ISP really doesn't have a leg to stand on, regarding not accepting your announcement.
Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space. Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting a /22 in v4?
The largest IPv6 prefix I saw in the global Internet routing table the last time I looked (a few months ago) that wasn't for a special purpose was a /19.... ~33 million times larger than a /44. Your ISP should have more constructive things to do than hassling a customer about announcing a /44. jms
It may also help to point out to them that under ARIN policy, if you need more than a single /48, you will get at least a /44. ARIN does not issue non-nibble-aligned blocks any more. You can get /12, /16, /20, /24, /28, /32, /36, /40, /44, /48, but you can't get a /45, /46, or /47. IMHO this is a good thing as it simplifies administration, DNS, and likely RPKI. It also reduces table bloat, and human factors related events. (At 3 am it turns out most people are bad at bit math). If your ISP would like, I am available to provide ipv6 training or consulting. Owen
On Aug 7, 2014, at 11:55, "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, John York wrote:
Hoping to not start a war...
We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Internet connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??"
Sounds like the ISP in question is in need of some serious IPv6 clue. The number of hosts means nothing, in terms of BGP advertisements. In fact, fewer announcements is better. De-aggregation bloats the global routing table.
Most carriers I've seen will accept IPv6 announcements as small as a /48.
If your /44 was assigned by your RIR, and it's documented in their whois/rwhois/route registry, your ISP really doesn't have a leg to stand on, regarding not accepting your announcement.
Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space. Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting a /22 in v4?
The largest IPv6 prefix I saw in the global Internet routing table the last time I looked (a few months ago) that wasn't for a special purpose was a /19.... ~33 million times larger than a /44.
Your ISP should have more constructive things to do than hassling a customer about announcing a /44.
jms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 No, it's not mis-sized. And no, you should advertise it all. I would advertise the /44 without reservation. Stuart Sheldon ACT USA AS22937 On 08/07/2014 01:58 PM, John York wrote:
Hoping to not start a war...
We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Internet connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??"
Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space. Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting a /22 in v4?
Thanks, John
-- John York Information Technology | Network Administrator
Phone: 615-399-7000 x:333
Griffin Technology 2030 Lindell Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 USA
- -- My pockets are empty though my wife has sent me to the store for some cigarettes and bread... I started walkin there, got as far as the square, then the smell of beer went to my head... The thing about beer, it can make a man hear, voices from days long since past, and with every third drink, it will make you think that your youth will always last... -- BR549 - "Lifetime to Prove Lyrics" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJT4+ouAAoJEFKVLITDJSGSw/oP/i8+UbGLHCDnW/2mlmX0ZnQt DIMNGM4gF+cB4monShUj6bKwUmtfFgtSLIwwZ9PEnStP1g+JTxhUjUFX3EEgLeli JfkdqBAluN/9BouBX0duEJLoxFQSimH/oGCvRETLJUBmojKjhWaTrJmIj4PDjSzb pwU8ZMfPaxzgz5ll3JYySyJ6TkAXNflhDpZcd7vrS3UhYDJIEwNh1JXJOXLd7929 LrS2yel7goaAxrmYzba6qg8q7TXxC/VaIMIsGPbwH+NbOY9vfbki6uMdky/iajw8 IvHz89id1Bae6CgXd+I/v9s+iUuvcP5HhycMaLKWGLcUoABbGRFnadN8E4nHGCvT WX9ZDxhWlRbW0sFkgxcIdAxNGBbxJjZxpaZr6zY0G6pb8ZIibPERdii1qjJOq4Zw Enh4YyMIoumZ+H70yhPPZgUcHpoaNJoSWZ6DvQrcxMuduq1IjfBwlbNyvZRl8vM5 x3/dmrYrl9TdnEPyZdPttn2RH6lsUk1NpyhdndKr1VX9tZD1oWtujAy8rBd5qB6L vn+pOC0SkauwPTqatkq8J2PxqYIKWHNkgEjQ5FZbPK9VDyuUIcM3DXpFtYELODKq m1HwY5pg7yxmcq4EDHsUO42b23u45V5JCdJldio+d8oeG00RQZulgijj0q1Rx29c gk7Se5U8guz0JbUbcn0W =rcZu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pretty strong reaction for a single prefix. Now if you said you wanted to advertise all your /64¹s that would be a different conversation. On 8/7/14, 2:58 PM, "John York" <johny@griffintechnology.com> wrote:
Hoping to not start a war...
We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Internet connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??"
Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space. Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting a /22 in v4?
Thanks, John
-- John York Information Technology | Network Administrator
Phone: 615-399-7000 x:333
Griffin Technology 2030 Lindell Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 USA
In message <bdc20a2a2ce17f668939ac7477502f1b@mail.gmail.com>, John York writes:
Hoping to not start a war...
We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Internet connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??"
Your ISP needs a IPv6 clue bat to be applied. Your ISP needs to learn that a /44 is 16 sites. It is also the next nibble boundry above a /48. The ISP shouldn't care about the number of addresses. You have justified your allocation based on the fact you are multi-homed and presumably the number of sites. The ISP appears to be wildly off base.
Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space. Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting a /22 in v4?
Address allocation in IPv6 is, or should be, number-of-sites based in IPv6 for end customers with a site gettting a /48. The exception is when a site needs more that 2^16 /64 subnets at a site which needs justification. For ISPs it is number-of-customer-sites (1 home == 1 site == 1 customer, commercial customers may have more than one site and need a bigger allocation) based with tuning for number-of-pops along with the customer allocation size (a /48 per customer site is reasonable though some ISPs do /56). IPv4 prefix size should have no bearing on the size of the IPv6 prefix for end customers. In IPv4 you count hosts. In IPv6 you count sites. This is as different as comparing apples and oranges. Just because you need a /22 in IPv4 doesn't mean you need a /44 in IPv6. You should be requesting address space based on the number of sites one has. Mark
Thanks, John
-- John York Information Technology | Network Administrator
Phone: 615-399-7000 x:333
Griffin Technology 2030 Lindell Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 USA -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
participants (6)
-
Corey Touchet -
John York -
Justin M. Streiner -
Mark Andrews -
Owen DeLong -
Stuart Sheldon