IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy

Seth Mattinen 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:
>>> 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 mailing list