IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy
sethm at rollernet.us
Tue Oct 13 04:50:07 UTC 2009
Kevin Loch wrote:
> 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:
>>> 188.8.131.52/22, 184.108.40.206/16, 220.127.116.11/24, 18.104.22.168/16
>>> 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.
I would love to see TE die a painful death. Maybe someone announcing
65536 routes will bring it to a swift end.
More information about the NANOG