North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Christopher L. Morrow
  • Date: Fri Oct 14 23:10:49 2005

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 10:57 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > Are you suggesting that something else is required for ISPs above and
> > beyond announcing PI space with BGP, or that shim6 (once baked and
> > real) would present a threat to ISPs?
> There is one situation which is not really covered here, one can of
> course announce multiple de-aggregates, but, these will be filtered.
> As such announcing them will only hurt one a lot, as the 'transits'
> that do carry them are mostly of bad quality.
> eg take the following situation:

snip following one example of multihoming problems... there are others.

> In this case, which is basically "traffic engineering for endsites with
> a global prefix", one runs into the shim6 thing again....
> For instance UUNET 'solved' this in a different way, they simply
> requested a 10 or so separate /32's. See GRH for the list.
> These chunks are still /32's thus only <n> of these /32's can exist in
> the global routing table. It would still be 'nicer' if they only had to
> use one prefix...

One may want to have more options :) one might want to perhaps peer in
region, or by national boundary... you must have options, a single prefix,
as your example above showed, is not an option.