On 11/14/2012 8:08 PM, Ben S. Butler wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, nice. But... It does not address the case when this is not the ISPs > customers but the ISP (read content provider) that operates globally but > without a network interconnecting their routers. They then advertise a /24 > v4 and /48 v6 at each Internet exchange that they are connected to. That is > "fine" for driving router. The "problem" with this design is that they cant > announce their /32 as they are not running a iBGP mesh. I have seen a number > of content providers doing this by design, and in the context of their > business I can understand why and see it makes some sense. The only problem > comes with the prefixes ending up under the minimum prefix size for the block > they are in. Yep. Ack. For the filtering policies it'd be nice to use space from a special prefix - like for PI assignments. But that will drive "global" routing table size :-( But that's what content providers who create islands are bound to do - or is there a way around without real connectivity or tunnels?
And the "polluters" apparently don't have enough incentives or pain to void islands... Frank > Now when this is a large content provider and we all want the peering, then > we relax the filters, fine, but why one rule for them and another for > everyone else in the same /12 block. Would it not make sense for the RIRs to > assign a /12 as issuable in /32, /29 to content providers who will > specifically deagregate to /48 with no internal network. > > That solves the filtering problem, doesn't force these networks to put an > iBGP network in place and lets everyone who does run a network "properly" to > announce the proper aggregate blocks / covering routes with more specifics if > we have to have them for routing purposes. > > A separate /12 for the "island" type networks would immediately make this > problem disappear. > > Am I being overly simplistic? > > Ben > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Habicht [mailto:ge...@geier.ne.tz] > Sent: 14 November 2012 16:56 > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: What is BCP re De-Aggregation: strict filtering /48s out of /32 > RIR minimums. > > On 11/14/2012 6:02 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> and send a polite email to the POC to the effect of, "Please beware >> that because you have not offered a covering route matching your >> allocation, your IPv6 network is not reachable from ours. IPv6 is not >> IPv4: end users requiring /48s for multihoming should get them >> directly from the RIR. For complete Internet connectivity, we strongly >> encourage you to offer a covering route." > > like that. > Frank > > > >
