- Previous message: Paul Vixie: "Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted"
- In reply to: Iljitsch van Beijnum: "Re: IPv6 Advertisements"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Stephen Sprunk (no email)
Date: Sat Jun 02 2007 - 14:50:05 EDT
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <>
> 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.
This is the motivation for the suggestion that folks accept a few extra bits
for routes with a short AS_PATH length; that gets you the benefits of TE
without cluttering distant ASes with deaggregates. This may also be
motivation for RIR policies that explicitly disallow TE as a justification
for a larger-than-minimum block.
> ... 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. ... 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.
In theory this can be done at the RIR region level; what's to stop RIPE
members from blocking all ARIN routes and just having a top-level route for
each of ARIN's blocks pointing towards North America, and ARIN members
blocking all RIPE routes and having a top-level route for each of RIPE's
blocks pointing towards Europe? If we can't get this working at a
continental level, considering how good the aggregation is on paper, how do
we ever expect to get it working within a region?
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
|
|
|