IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy

Tue Oct 13 04:12:06 UTC 2009

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:40:36 PDT, David Conrad said:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come
> much closer.
>
> I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in
> IPv6 than in IPv4.

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20091013/997a0374/attachment.sig>