Routing problems to 2400:CB00::/32 CLOUDFLARE

Laurent GUERBY laurent at
Sat Jun 16 17:02:18 CEST 2012


On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 16:13 +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> | Advertisement of more specific prefixes should not be used unless
> | absolutely necessary and, where sensible, a covering aggregate should
> | also be advertised. Further, LIRs should use BGP methods such as
> | NO_EXPORT [RFC-1997] and NOPEER [RFC-3765] or provider-specific
> | communities, as described in RIPE-399 to limit the propagation of
> | more specific prefixes in the routing table.
> What makes YOU want to ignore this way more specific recommendation in 
> the very same document?

Mostly because we wanted IPv6 to work for our allocation before our
provider was ready for full IPv6 deployment. 

We asked RIPE and IPv6 PI cannot be used for ISP purposes (one end user
only) so the only option other than PA is becoming LIR: both were
proposed as solutions by RIPE, we went PA.

For our kind of use (small AS) becoming LIR will waste address space
since current policy is /22 IPv4 and /32 IPv6 (more an issue
for IPv4 though). 

As noted in RIPE documents there's always a conflict between waste of
address space and number of routes announced: in the end if RIPE-532
"/48" is discarded we'll have to go the waste route.



More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list