[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:46:00 EDT, Kevin Loch said:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> > 
> >> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> >> the legacy cruft.  For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> >> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
> >> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
> >>
> >> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
> >> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
> >> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
> >> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
> > 
> > 
> > I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
> > about IPv6 TE.
> 
> I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
> policies should not be a factor in v6.  My guess is that is about
> half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
> TE routes.

Exactly. We have 4 prefixes only because we got slow-started and similar
hysterical raisins, we don't use those for TE at all. If we wanted to do any
globally visible TE that actually made a difference, we'd have to announce a
more-specific out of one of the /16s anyhow, since that's where all our traffic
generators/sinks are (and probably a matching more-specific out of our v6 /48).
So we're always going to have 4+N on the IPv4 and 1+N on the IPv6 side.

(And if we'd gotten more address space for that wireless net, we'd be at
5+N rather than 4+N).


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20091013/23b3fb04/attachment.bin>