Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 policies & BGP announcements

[Clement Cavadore clement@localhost]

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