On 2-jun-2007, at 17:25, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
Am I under some misconceptions about IPv6 routing policies here?
There are no IPv6 routing policies. Everyone gets to decide which prefixes to accept and which to reject on their own. However, unlike IPv4, there are currently pretty much only two flavors: /32 and /48. So if you have a /32 and start announcing a bunch of /36s, or you have a /48 and start announcing /52s, it's likely that at least some people out there aren't going to accept those. (Nor /48s in blocks that are carved up as /32.) So I expect people who are in your position to start requesting blocks larger than /32 or /48 in order to be able to deaggregate, or even request multiple independent PI blocks. It will be interesting to see what this means for the number of PI requests and speed at which the global IPv6 routing table grows. It would be nice if rather than fight about how difficult it should be to occupy a slot in the routing table, with both "too difficult" and "too easy" having painful consequences, we could work something out using regional address blocks or something so it's not necessary for a router on one side of the globe to have all the more specifics that are only relevant on the opposite side of the globe. Obviously we don't want metro addressing with mandatory interconnection all over the place, but common sense suggests that there is some middle ground where it's possible to have address space that's at least portable within a certain region, but we get to prune the routing tables elsewhere.
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
So I expect people who are in your position to start requesting blocks larger than /32 or /48 in order to be able to deaggregate, or even request multiple independent PI blocks. It will be interesting to see what this means for the number of PI requests and speed at which the global IPv6 routing table grows.
This is the motivation for the suggestion that folks accept a few extra bits for routes with a short AS_PATH length; that gets you the benefits of TE without cluttering distant ASes with deaggregates. This may also be motivation for RIR policies that explicitly disallow TE as a justification for a larger-than-minimum block.
... so it's not necessary for a router on one side of the globe to have all the more specifics that are only relevant on the opposite side of the globe. ... common sense suggests that there is some middle ground where it's possible to have address space that's at least portable within a certain region, but we get to prune the routing tables elsewhere.
In theory this can be done at the RIR region level; what's to stop RIPE members from blocking all ARIN routes and just having a top-level route for each of ARIN's blocks pointing towards North America, and ARIN members blocking all RIPE routes and having a top-level route for each of RIPE's blocks pointing towards Europe? If we can't get this working at a continental level, considering how good the aggregation is on paper, how do we ever expect to get it working within a region? S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
participants (2)
-
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Stephen Sprunk