IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy

Christopher Morrow morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Tue Oct 13 02:22:46 UTC 2009


On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate.  MPLS
>> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
>> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers.  Various
>> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 based on addressing availbility.
>> Some networks are actually finally using multicast for IPTV services,
>> generating much larger number of entries than the global multicast table
>> would otherwise indicate.
>>
>
> It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
> site multihoming. The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an

here's where a pointer to this dicussion of ~4yrs ago should be (on
this list no less)... that said: "Hey, this is afu, if you as
operators want this to work properly, please, please, please get your
butts on v6ops at ietf and make some noise."

I believe that'd have been from me, but marla azinger also sent out
some similar emails and presented 2-3 times at past nanog meetings
about multihoming options wrt ipv6.  This ain't gonna get fixed by
nanog-kvetching.

> "ISP" but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
> been how long now? PI, multihoming, multicast, etc. is reality because
> the internet is now Very Serious Business for many, many people.

v6 was designed in an era quite different than today's network. there
were a large number of assumptions made, practically none of which
hold water today. this can't get fixed here, please see
v6man/v6ops at ietf.

Alternately please see rrg at ietf or lisp at ietf, rrg's looking to make a
decision on their research 'soon', lisp is looking for active folks to
provide comment/direction...

> Yes, I know there's hacks like SHIM6 and I don't wish to go OT into a

there are no (save lisp) network based 'hacks' for this...
shim6/hip/mip all basically do host-level multihoming, which is cool,
and may be useful to some folks, but they are not useful for folks
trying to do TE in the network. (which also was hashed out quite a bit
on this list)

> debate about them, so I'll just say that if there had been a viable
> alternative to multihoming as we know it I think it would have been
> given a go before policy got pushed to the RIR's to allow IPv6 PI.

100% agreement... wanna join in the discussion and offer some
options/fixes/commentary?

-chris




More information about the NANOG mailing list