IPv6 multihoming

Brandon Butterworth brandon at bogons.net
Tue Feb 8 10:56:37 CET 2011


> 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".

I don't mind who decides as long as it's something everyone follows, I
was agreeing with you.

It seems to me a better trade could be to use space which is asserted to
be plentiful than create a path to lots of deaggregation. As there's
lots of space I don't see that as a real pressure on the address
policy group, they have way more freedom than FIB owners.

People with disjointed networks are going to use those routing slots
up with deagg or new allocation regardless, we just need to ensure
the least side effects. Or say no but I doubt that would be accepted.

How many slots are potentially used with a few bits of deagg latitute
across the entire space vs a number of specific extra allocations?
There's v6 PI now so the latter is already effectively available to all.

I suspect that controlling via allocation is going to be slighly
more successful than getting unilateral agreement on what to allow 
people to route. The latter hasn't done better than stick to the /24
v4 limit that was decided by allocation policy, some ISPs would happily
make that /32 v4

> 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.

And they haven't done it for 10 years either.
 
> I'm pretty sure that someone who deaggs his /32 to 65000 /48s (!) is going
> to be hanged by angry mob pretty quickly...

Indeed, the limit where they can't be bothered could still be uncomfortable
it takes a lot to raise a mob, by then we've already lost.

brandon


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list