CloudFlare IPv6 BGP announcements - WTF guys?
lists at c4inet.net
Tue Jul 17 15:21:29 CEST 2012
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:53:24AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
>I think the issue here is people that feel entitled to pollute a global
>network of routers, etc and impose their policy upon my network.
I'm working on the assumption that some operators do this out of
operational necessity, not stupidity or "because they can"
Like all assumptions, it is probably flawed.
>There are community driven models of this, through the RIR. Keeping
>IPv6 table growth reasonably by complying with these policies isn't
>that hard. I think that's the problem that myself and others see here.
>If you feel entitled to announce a few /64's or /128's to your ISP and
>they accept them, then great. That doesn't mean they are globally
I've no problem with using PIv6 or indeed separate /32 PAv6 for such
purposes either, provided the RIR policies allow for such use. This
may well be the best compromise.
>CloudFlare may have legitimate reasons for doing what they are here.
I've seen more deaggregated announcements lately, often connected to
some kind of business continuity / disaster recovery service.
I don't like it either but it suggests there is a genuine need that
policy doesn't recognize right now.
>lawn/routing table" but there are real costs of these entries in the
>RIB + FIB. I would rather not see a model where you're billed based on
>your pollution, but that was the Sean Doran model of "send me a check"
>for use of my FIB entry. I can assign a cost to it, can you?
I don't like that argument. IMO it plays into the hands of the ITU and
certain large operators where "termination fees" "per-ASN-billing" and
"pay to play" are certainly on the wish list.
I can't see a solution either though. In the short term, allowing the
use of PIv6 for this purpose might help keeping it under control.
More information about the ipv6-ops