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

[Clement Cavadore clement@localhost]

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