[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Tue Jun 22 13:49:18 CEST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-06-22, at 12.29, Gert Doering wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:08:09AM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote: >>>> This doesn't fly. He can't set his own routing policy and he can't >>>> multihome. If he changes the single upstream his customers needs to >>>> renumber. >>> As of today, "more-specific BGP multihoming" works. So he *can* set >>> his own routing policy. >> >> Can you personaly garantee the upstream suplying the space won't >> aggregate >> his prefix ? > > And if he does, so what? He will loose traffic, as the *other* ISP > will make the more specific visible world-wide, and thus no paid-for > packets will arrive at the aggregating upstream. > > Using a more-specific block out of PA space is a well-established > technique in IPv4 today. It's not "beautiful", but it works better > than other variants. Well, in todays IPv4 world people are also taking PA blocks and advertise them as individual /24s, just to implement policy. I am not sure that is so much better than just giving the LIRs a /32. Those who are to small to become LIRs? Though luck. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQNgcxKarNKXTPFCVEQKErwCdEMKuZqc8p28+Balrh6FLurHR6boAn2SQ MYTctDKhAqzgdRCIcn4XhOyX =y9Kr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]