North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 Advertisements

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Sat Jun 02 12:23:34 2007

On 2-jun-2007, at 17:25, Ross Vandegrift wrote:

Am I under some misconceptions about IPv6 routing policies here?

There are no IPv6 routing policies. Everyone gets to decide which prefixes to accept and which to reject on their own. However, unlike IPv4, there are currently pretty much only two flavors: /32 and /48. So if you have a /32 and start announcing a bunch of /36s, or you have a /48 and start announcing /52s, it's likely that at least some people out there aren't going to accept those. (Nor /48s in blocks that are carved up as /32.)

So I expect people who are in your position to start requesting blocks larger than /32 or /48 in order to be able to deaggregate, or even request multiple independent PI blocks. It will be interesting to see what this means for the number of PI requests and speed at which the global IPv6 routing table grows.

It would be nice if rather than fight about how difficult it should be to occupy a slot in the routing table, with both "too difficult" and "too easy" having painful consequences, we could work something out using regional address blocks or something so it's not necessary for a router on one side of the globe to have all the more specifics that are only relevant on the opposite side of the globe. Obviously we don't want metro addressing with mandatory interconnection all over the place, but common sense suggests that there is some middle ground where it's possible to have address space that's at least portable within a certain region, but we get to prune the routing tables elsewhere.