CloudFlare IPv6 BGP announcements - WTF guys?

Stefan Neufeind v6ops at
Mon Jul 16 22:18:49 CEST 2012

On 07/16/2012 09:49 PM, Oliver wrote:
> On Monday 16 July 2012 21:15:17 Daniel Roesen wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 03:45:43PM +0200, Oliver wrote:
>>> The whole thing is daft; even if you've got multiple upstreams, there's
>>> still *nothing* preventing you from exposing only your /32 to the rest of
>>> the internet and tagging more specifics with NO_EXPORT to each of your
>>> upstreams.
>> Not having a backbone pretty effectively does.
> ...Which would fall under the second paragraph of my previous e-mail regarding 
> the need for a particular subnet's traffic to go via a particular upstream.
>>> If your modus operandi is to pollute the routing tables, you deserve all
>>> the unreachability you get.
>> Wether you see /32 PA more-specifics from all the CDN nodes, or PI /48s
>> doesn't make a difference at all, technically.
> I'd have hoped this was self-evident and serves to highlight the fact that the 
> protection against such abuse is down to RIR policies governing eligibility 
> for PI space.

But I agree with Daniel it wouldn't actually make much of a difference
(technically). Well, for the RIRs it's of course many more shiny new
ressources in their statistics, more work and more money. I don't
believe getting individual /48-allocations is any better than "clean"


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list