[jump-admins] IPv6 multihoming

[James A. T. Rice]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Brandon Butterworth wrote:

>> (Now, I'm a strong believer in aggregation, but I also recognize that
>> 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.
>
> 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.

+1, fully agree here.

Keep strict prefix length filters usuable and have the RIRs give out extra 
prefixes where needed for routing purposes. There's no need to accpet the 
same chaos in v6 as there is in v4, we can stop it happening in the first 
place by making sure a) there's no need to deagg, b) it won't work even if 
people try.

If people want to 'traffic engineer' or whatever the common excuse for 
spewing the tables is, they can do it on a localised basis with upstrams 
and no-export communities, and announce the aggregate too.

Regards
James