[ipv6-wg] IPv6 policies & BGP announcements
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 policies & BGP announcements
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 policies & BGP announcements
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Clement Cavadore
clement at cavadore.net
Tue Nov 27 22:45:28 CET 2007
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 19:22 +0000, Carlos Friacas wrote: > The biggest problem is the state of IPv6 deployment itself :-( > But some transit providers start to ask about route6 objects, just like > they do about route object (i.e. see rpslng). At least mine, does :-) That's exactly what I assumed, so I asked my LIR to create a route6 object for the /47 I announce to him. > > A lot of operators likely > > discard anything longer than /32 in the RIR allocation space. > > Probably. > Most people doesn't follow (or is aware) about: > http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html > > Perhaps the effect would be different if the RIRs would start to maintain > these recommendations themselves....... It would sure be better. I saw a /42 announced by RIPE, which is part of another LIR's /32 sTLA. Although there is no route6: object for it, I guess most of IPv6-aware networks do care about reaching RIPE's IPv6 servers. Seeing that announcement gave me guidelines regarding BCP in doing IPv6 multihoming without being LIR. Florian Weimer wrote: > > ARIN offers IPv6 PI space, perhaps you can get a /48 prefix which is > > supposed to be globally routable from them. Well, since I am not in ARIN-land, it wouldn't be really normal for me to ask for an ARIN-PIv6. Let's assume RIPE will find a good solution for people in my case :). Regards, -- Clément Cavadore
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 policies & BGP announcements
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 policies & BGP announcements
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]