IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy

Tue Oct 13 04:46:00 UTC 2009

Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks at 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.

I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
policies should not be a factor in v6.  My guess is that is about
half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
TE routes.

Speaking of TE, it's going to be interesting to see how we deal with
that.  We can't expect everyone to accept any /48 that gets announced.
I'm still waiting for the first time someone blows up the Internet
by announcing all 65536 /48's in their /32.  I'm amazed it hasn't
happened yet.

Stricter use of the IRR might help if there wasn't rampant auto
proxy registering going on.  RPKI may be the answer since that
can't be proxy-registered.  That would at least mitigate router
bugs and carelessness.   The issue of what intentional TE routes
are seen as "acceptable" is another issue.

- Kevin