[109345] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 routing /48s
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Mon Nov 17 18:47:56 2008
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
To: Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov
In-Reply-To: <OFC96626CF.8E97CCDC-ON85257504.007C3F42-86257504.007D12F7@frbog.frb.gov>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:47:44 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 2008-11-17, at 17:46, Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov wrote:
> Are there any parties out there routing /48 IPv6 networks globally?
Yes. Some particularly visible examples are root and TLD server
operators. There are some TLDs which are well-served by IPv6-capable
nameservers, but which would be completely invisible to v6-only
clients if their covering /48s were not accepted.
ASes which refuse prefixes longer than 32 bits across the board as a
matter of policy are broken.
The last time I looked, the RIRs with v6 micro-assignment policies
were all doing long-prefix assignments from an easy-to-identify range
of addresses. Creating a general-purpose filter which lets through PI /
48s but drops PA/deaggregated /48s is not rocket science.
> I ran
> into a supposed Catch-22 with Verizon and IPv6 address space and was
> looking for clarification.
I was once told by another large carrier I was trying to buy from in
Miami that "you are not allowed to announce your own addresses in
IPv6; you have to use addresses from your upstream".
While the goal of encouraging use of PA addresses and discouraging
deaggregation may be noble and good, it seems more education is
required in some areas. "There is such a thing as PI in IPv6", for
example, and perhaps "just because it's a /48 doesn't mean it's not PI".
Joe
