-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Paul Vixie wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
i think the important points for ietf@ to know about are (a) that this
is an open issue, (b) that it's generally agreed that all the
RIR's ought to have the same rules regarding microallocations, and (c)
exactly where (as in what working group or mailing list or smoke filled room)
the
discussion is being held. for example, bill says above that
"/35 routes are being discouraged" and that's probably true but "by
whom?" and "where?"
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything >/35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not
be accepting anything smaller (/33, /34 etc)
Checking http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/all/
8<------------
The database currently holds 630 IPv6 TLA's.
Of which 18 (2.86%) are returned to the pool, 202 (32.06%) IPv6
TLA's didn't have a routing entry.
Thus 410 (65.08%) networks are currently announced.
0 (0.00%) only announced a /35 while they have been assigned a /32.
13 (2.06%) announce both their /32 and their /35.
- ------------>8
I have to add that there is an error here as 2001:dc0::/35 is in
the tables, but doesn't get picked up by the software, will be
fixing that soonish. Generally if you announce a /35 it will get
through to most ISP's. But we should be avoiding that. Currently
the ipv6 global routing table is quite small, but it could grow
quite large and when ISP's still don't filter correctly, or better
if ISP's don't aggregate it will explode and we will be needing
the follow up to BGP soon, which is more work for the IETF :)
As for which smoked filled room, this should be a task of the
RIRs, thus RIPE's IPv6 WG etc. but it usually takes place when
communicating between ISP's. Notice that many ISP's use Gerts list:
http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
I would applaud a generic /32 that is 'allowed' to being cut up
into multiple /48's for the purpose of critical infrastructure.
But please, keep it to 1 *documented* /32. That way people will
know that they will see more specifics from that prefix and that
they should be accepting it too.
Currently the !3! IX blocks (2001:7f8::/32 + 2001:504::/32 + 2001:7fa::/32)
are seen being announced in pieces too. Maybe these IX blocks, which
are common already could be used for assigning 'critical infra' from?
This is a RIR thing and should be discussed there (ipv6-wg cc'd).
The IETF though should ofcourse advise in all matters.
Greets,
Jeroen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen(_at_)unfix(_dot_)org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iQA/AwUBP9TmwCmqKFIzPnwjEQIk9gCfWIZU0RJA3OGyrbOFTa1+ZIvSDE4AniOW
qOqG5k7653xd5LaLSLUAglde
=mqwa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----