Re: [db-wg] Route(6) objects

2023-07-10 Thread Kaupo Ehtnurm via db-wg
Hello Did your ddos provider say that their upstreams required exact route6 matches for your announcements? --- No, but I was wondering what do other AS-s do with my ipv6 prefix, if they are using IRR filtering in bgp. I am not talking only about providers and providers providers. I am talking

Re: [db-wg] Route(6) objects

2023-07-10 Thread Job Snijders via db-wg
Dear Kaupo, others, (Speaking as individual working group contributor.) On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:06:30AM +0300, Kaupo Ehtnurm via db-wg wrote: > Since route6 object is a must and ROA is a should and they ultimately > fill the same purpose, than why isn't there a "max length" in route6 > object?

Re: [db-wg] Route(6) objects

2023-07-10 Thread Kaupo Ehtnurm via db-wg
Hello Thank you very much for the explanation. But I think we have steered away a little bit from my original question. As I can conclude from all the answers earlier, then still my only option if I want my ip transit provider to be able to advertise some /48 within my /32 at random times and f

Re: [db-wg] Route(6) objects

2023-07-10 Thread Cynthia Revström via db-wg
Look, you can never be certain that 100% of networks are going to accept your prefixes but for DDoS that shouldn't matter as others have pointed out. What I can say is please don't create 65536 route6 objects or otherwise I feel like we are going to have to start discussion about a policy to preven