[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
Wed Nov 28 01:19:26 CET 2007
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 23:35 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > There is one problem with this setup though. If 'good/fast' providers > filter your more specific, then most likely only 'bad/slow' providers > will transit it to others, who will use the more specific and thus the > bad/slow providers. As such announcing a more specific can cause that > your prefix becomes broken due to the better ISP's filtering the more > specific out. I agree on that. But except having a statically routed IP space by a LIR (or becoming LIR and ask for a /32, which would surely be overkill, or trying to ask ARIN for PIv6), is there any other proper solutions ? Hopefully, as you said, if a more specific prefix is filtered somewhere, it could still be routed through its LIR's /32 announcement (if the LIR knows the more specific route, or course). > What exactly is "your case"? I simply run a small network without being LIR (having PI in IPv4 land), and would like to have IPv6 services available in it. First, I got a /48 statically routed in my network by the LIR who owns the parent /32. Then, I got the consecutive /48 routed to my network, so I chose to announce a /47, in order to have multihoming and peering intercos, in the future, using my ASN, like I do in IPv4. I guess it's always the same debate: What are the pros and cons regarding PIv6 (or call it "globally routable smaller prefix than /32"). 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 ]