[157906] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What is BCP re De-Aggregation: strict filtering /48s out of /32
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Smith)
Wed Nov 14 15:12:15 2012
From: Michael Smith <mksmith@mac.com>
In-reply-to: <CAP-guGUR-_C2D9=MKZFwHN_f7W0nXVj47J9UR6HetQtV=OPjrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:10:43 -0800
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:06 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Ben S. Butler
> <Ben.Butler@c2internet.net> wrote:
>> Yes, nice. But... It does not address the case when this is
>> not the ISPs customers but the ISP (read content provider)
>> that operates globally but without a network interconnecting
>> their routers.
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> That case is covered by things like ARIN's multiple discrete networks
> policy which permit an ISP /32 or end-user /48 for _each_ distinct
> network. There are plenty of addresses in IPv6. You should be break up
> a /32 for traffic engineering purposes, not for the sake of handling
> multiple disconnected sites. And when exercising TE, you can offer a
> covering route and expect the network as a whole to still function
> regardless of other folks' suballocation filtering.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
I guess I'm confused. I have a /32 that I have broken up into /47's for my discrete POP locations. I don't have a network between them, by design. And, I won't announce the /32 covering route because there is no single POP that can take requests for the entire /32 - think regionalized anycast.
So, how is it "worse" to announce the deaggregated /47's versus getting a /32 for every POP? In either case, I'm going to put the same number of routes into the DFZ.
Mike
