[101369] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Azinger, Marla)
Wed Jan 2 14:36:18 2008
From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com>
To: Vinny Abello <vinny@tellurian.com>, Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>
CC: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljitsch@muada.com>,
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>,
NANOG
list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:32:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: <477BDD9E.8000903@tellurian.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I'm glad to see more people are starting to look at this issue. If you are=
just now beginning to look into the IPv6 Multihoming issue I would start w=
ith reading a few strings on IETF, NANOG and ARIN mail lists and the follow=
ing document posted 2 years ago at: http://www.nro.org/documents/pdf/Multih=
omeIPv6procon.pdf
Decisions need to be made soon and all kinds of policy can effect that. Th=
eir are dueling issues at hand on this matter and we need to find a balance=
. Traffic Engineering and Multihoming is an Engineering requirement. Not =
exploding the tables is also a requirement. Right now policy only inadvert=
ently supports PI to be used for Multihoming and policy inadvertently does =
not support TE or Multihoming. Not permitting TE or Multihoming on large n=
etworks is not going to be accepted by the large networks as an answer. So=
it would be a "good thing" if our community could work out a balance that =
permits TE and Multihoming on a managed scale. Otherwise those networks wi=
ll just start doing whatever they want or need.
Cheers!
Marla
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Vin=
ny Abello
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:53 AM
To: Donald Stahl
Cc: Joe Abley; Iljitsch van Beijnum; Christopher Morrow; NANOG list
Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
Donald Stahl wrote:
>
>> in real life; people still find it necessary to carve up their
>> aggregates and announce more-specifics in strategic directions. I
>> would suggest that not *all* observed instances of such deaggregation
>> are due to operator ignorance
> There's a big difference between deaggregating a couple of bits for TE
> purposes and announcing 64 /24's from your /18 :)
>
> We need to decide what's acceptable as a community and then enforce it
> as a community. If someone starts announcing dozens of prefixes in v6
> then they get blocked they either get blocked or they get a filter
> that restricts them to their covering route (or blocks them if they
> don't have it).
On this note: In the v6 world when multihoming, what size network block is =
the minimum recommended allocation? In the v4 Internet, most major networks=
I've seen do not accept anything longer than /24 and this is what is alloc=
ated to customers with their own AS when multihoming regardless of the usag=
e of the /24. I'm just curious if this is currently outlined somewhere alre=
ady as what was decided. Are we going to see /64's, /56's or /48's pollutin=
g the v6 routing table just as /24's are today on the v4 table? I understan=
d most of that pollution is not because of multihoming, but rather TE or ne=
gligence/lack of clue. With the advent of 32 bit ASN's, this could possibly=
become a concern however... that and people trying to do TE with their v6 =
space as they did with v4. I agree with the above reply that this needs to =
be ironed out as a community and was curious how multihoming customer netwo=
rks fit into this equation.
--
Vinny Abello
Network Engineer
vinny@tellurian.com
(973)940-6100 (NOC)
PGP Key Fingerprint: 3BC5 9A48 FC78 03D3 82E0 E935 5325 FBCB 0100 977A
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.=
com (888)TELLURIAN
"There is no objective reality. Only that which is measured exists.
We construct reality, and only in the moment of measurement or observation.=
" -- Niels Bohr
