Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?

Rick Astley jnanog at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 10:54:23 UTC 2008


On Jan 3, 2008 4:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Rick Astley wrote:
>
> > If Bob has a multihomed network, he can't just give one /48 to a
> customer in
> > NY and the next one to a customer in CA unless he wants to fill up
> Internet
> > routing tables with /48's, so he will have to assign large aggregate
> blocks
> > to each region.
>
> Could you please elaborate on this? Unless Bob is actually breaking the
> "single AS needs to have common IGP and be connected internally", I don't
> understand the relevance of your statement above. Just because he's
> multihomed doesn't mean he can't just announce /32 and then internally
> handle the routing (of course he should do aggregation though, but perhaps
> is smaller chunks).


Because announcing more specifics is more granular. Lets say we are both
nationally connected and I peer with you in only one location (say CA).

If we both announce only one aggregate block to each other, if I am trying
to get to you in NY from NY, we are going to do it through California (not
good).

The same scenario happens if we peer on both sides of the country and one of
the sessions goes down.

In this case the best path is probably me > someone else > you.

Now instead what I can do is tag my california routes with a "california"
bgp community, and export only those specific routes to you there.
This way your traffic to me in NY will not go over this session.

Now unless you want a pile of /48's handed to you over this session, it is
good practice for me to aggregate my routes based on location as best I can.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20080103/d74938a0/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list