IPv6 multihoming

Bernd Walter ticso at cicely7.cicely.de
Sat Feb 5 14:52:37 CET 2011

On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:49:16AM +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> On 04.02.2011 20:31, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> >If you mean that punching holes in PA blocks is a bad idea, I agree,
> >but really only for the same reason - it doesn't scale to millions,
> >only to thousands. Once people accept /48s, PI or PA are just about
> >the same.
> I don't agree. A lot of /48s in PA space look like unintentionally 
> leaked more-specifics from iBGP, while a /48 from PI space is usually 
> intentional.
> Which is why I'm (of course) accepting /48 from PI+IXP ranges but not 
> only up to /36 from PA.

So multihoming a /48 PA or allow another ISP to announce it during
transition phase is already considered bad practice?
You differentiate PI from PA space by using RIR databases?
This is no critic, just asking about the current rules.

B.Walter <bernd at bwct.de> http://www.bwct.de
Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm.

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list