On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:06 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Ben S. Butler > <ben.but...@c2internet.net> wrote: >> 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. > > Hi Ben, > > That case is covered by things like ARIN's multiple discrete networks > policy which permit an ISP /32 or end-user /48 for _each_ distinct > network. There are plenty of addresses in IPv6. You should be break up > a /32 for traffic engineering purposes, not for the sake of handling > multiple disconnected sites. And when exercising TE, you can offer a > covering route and expect the network as a whole to still function > regardless of other folks' suballocation filtering. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > I guess I'm confused. I have a /32 that I have broken up into /47's for my discrete POP locations. I don't have a network between them, by design. And, I won't announce the /32 covering route because there is no single POP that can take requests for the entire /32 - think regionalized anycast. So, how is it "worse" to announce the deaggregated /47's versus getting a /32 for every POP? In either case, I'm going to put the same number of routes into the DFZ. Mike
