IPv6 multihoming

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 07:26:59PM +0000, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> > there are cases where ISP networks are run by the same entity but 
> > for some or the other reason are not connected - so they have a single
> > /32 for both [or even multiple] parts, and *need* to deaggregate...)
> 
> No they don't, give them extra separate space.

That's just playing pingpong with politics.  "So the routing folks are
not able to come up with a recommendation, so we put the pressure on
the address policy group to come up with criteria who is allowed to
have a second slot in the routing table (and bonus addres space that
comes with it!) and who is not".

This is the approach that hasn't worked for the last 10 years, which is 
why the ball is in the operator's camp now.

> For that little convenience for a few why should the entire net be at
> the mercy of rampant deaggregation either eating your routers or letting
> people do more specifics of your routes, some will deagg down to whatever
> is the limit (/48?) to protect themselves from that.

I'm pretty sure that someone who deaggs his /32 to 65000 /48s (!) is going
to be hanged by angry mob pretty quickly...

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20110208/23d8c64b/attachment.sig>