[157897] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: What is BCP re De-Aggregation: strict filtering /48s out of /32
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben S. Butler)
Wed Nov 14 12:08:36 2012
From: "Ben S. Butler" <Ben.Butler@c2internet.net>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:08:03 +0000
In-Reply-To: <50A3CD39.4020509@geier.ne.tz>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
Yes, nice. But... It does not address the case when this is not the ISPs c=
ustomers but the ISP (read content provider) that operates globally but wit=
hout a network interconnecting their routers. They then advertise a /24 v4=
and /48 v6 at each Internet exchange that they are connected to. That is =
"fine" for driving router. The "problem" with this design is that they can=
t announce their /32 as they are not running a iBGP mesh. I have seen a nu=
mber of content providers doing this by design, and in the context of their=
business I can understand why and see it makes some sense. The only probl=
em comes with the prefixes ending up under the minimum prefix size for the =
block they are in.
Now when this is a large content provider and we all want the peering, then=
we relax the filters, fine, but why one rule for them and another for ever=
yone else in the same /12 block. Would it not make sense for the RIRs to a=
ssign a /12 as issuable in /32, /29 to content providers who will specifica=
lly deagregate to /48 with no internal network.
That solves the filtering problem, doesn't force these networks to put an i=
BGP network in place and lets everyone who does run a network "properly" to=
announce the proper aggregate blocks / covering routes with more specifics=
if we have to have them for routing purposes.
A separate /12 for the "island" type networks would immediately make this p=
roblem disappear.
Am I being overly simplistic?
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Habicht [mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz]=20
Sent: 14 November 2012 16:56
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What is BCP re De-Aggregation: strict filtering /48s out of /3=
2 RIR minimums.
On 11/14/2012 6:02 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> and send a polite email to the POC to the effect of, "Please beware=20
> that because you have not offered a covering route matching your=20
> allocation, your IPv6 network is not reachable from ours. IPv6 is not
> IPv4: end users requiring /48s for multihoming should get them=20
> directly from the RIR. For complete Internet connectivity, we strongly=20
> encourage you to offer a covering route."
like that.
Frank
