[178247] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 deagg
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marco d'Itri)
Mon Feb 23 05:48:14 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:46:29 +0100
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20150220080726.GA23425@pob.ytti.fi>
From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Feb 20, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
> Is deaggregation inherently undesirable? In some RIR LIR will not get new
No. Excessive deaggregation is undesirable, but we lack a method to teach
routers to enforce this subtlety and maybe also a wide agreement on what=20
is excessive.
> allocation, just because LIR lacks INET connectivity between their datace=
nter
> or pop.
> This wasn't issue in IPv4, because you actually could reasonably fill your
> IPv4 allocation and were eligible for another allocation for your
> discontinuous locations.
But at least in the RIPE region this can be easily solved by=20
deaggregating /32s out of your /29.
--=20
ciao,
Marco
--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=XvCW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI--
