v6 deagg

Saku Ytti saku at ytti.fi
Fri Feb 20 08:07:26 UTC 2015


On (2015-02-20 12:07 +0900), Randy Bush wrote:

Hey,

> in a discussion with some fellow researchers, the subject of ipv6
> deaggregation arose; will it be less or more than we see in ipv4?

Is deaggregation inherently undesirable? In some RIR LIR will not get new
allocation, just because LIR lacks INET connectivity between their datacenter
or pop.
This wasn't issue in IPv4, because you actually could reasonably fill your
IPv4 allocation and were eligible for another allocation for your
discontinuous locations.

Clearly there are valid routing reasons why >1 network from single company has
to appears in DFZ. Having RIR allocate another network or having LIR
deaggregate have exact same cost to RIB/FIB, yet they are different.

Multiple allocation gives additional scrutiny, network must pass RIR policy to
be able to exist.
Deagrregation is entirely uncontrolled, we don't know from route object the
reason for it, valid reasons and invalid reasons are grouped in same pool.

What is the correct solution here? Deaggregate or allocate space you don't
need? Or some others solution, should route object creation be limited to LIR
and be controlled by specific policy? It would allow inject information about
the reason for it.

Correct solution is not to use some so called 'strict' ipv6 filters, which
break Internet, by not allowing discontinuous pops having connectivity.

-- 
  ++ytti



More information about the NANOG mailing list