[118137] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Tue Oct 13 00:22:13 2009
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:21:30 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <14776.1255407126@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
>
> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
about IPv6 TE.
2c,
Adrian
