[routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Tue Apr 27 11:25:02 CEST 2010
Hi Philip, > Nick Hilliard said the following on 27/04/10 07:57 : >> On 26/04/2010 13:32, Randy Bush wrote: >>> we tell people ipv6 allows multi-homing. >> >> Do we? Which particular vapour are you referring to here? > > I suppose the question Rob and I are trying to address is, do we want to > encourage ISPs to take their /32 and announce all 65536 /48s in an > effort to do some kind of amazing traffic engineering act by juggling > all 65k prefixes at once? > > Or do we want to encourage ISPs to think aggregation, and only leak the > subprefixes that they need to leak to support their multihoming > customers and traffic engineering requirements? I want to emphasize that this came up because of LIRs that had multiple distinct networks that they couldn't announce (ok, nothing is impossible, but it would be awkward) their PA /32 prefix in one part. Possible solutions were to give them multiple /32 prefixes or to write a recommendation that a bit of de-aggregation should be permitted. At the time the latter was felt to be a better solution :) It can of course be abused for traffic engineering... > Anyway, the doc would just be recommendations, along the lines of > RIPE-399 being no more than recommendations. If folks think we are > wasting our time putting together an IPv6 equivalent, let us know, and > we can stop here. ;-) The routing stuff was taken out of the address policies to be moved to a separate routing recommendations document. I think this is important, so please continue :-) Thanks, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]