IPv6 BGP TE (was Couldflare routing problems)
chris.welti at switch.ch
Thu Jun 21 15:54:26 CEST 2012
I specifically said I don't see a valid use case for *globally* advertising
more specifics. Locally is a different case:
Using more specifics for TE is fine towards your upstreams or direct
peers, where you can still negotiate acceptance of more specific
announcements for this purpose.
It shouldn't be a problem to also originate a covering /32 in this case, so you will
not suffer from any connectivity issues.
Of course, all your upstreams would need to accept your more specifics from each other,
for TE to be really effective, but you can include that in your contracts with them.
Am 6/21/12 3:30 PM, schrieb Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com:
> Sorry for pointing at the big pink elephant in the room, but what
> about IPv6 BGP traffic engineering? This is probably not a concern on
> the short term, but it could become one fairly rapidly as traffic
> grows. I understand the fears about table growth, but there's also a
> genuine need for ISPs to control traffic flows, at least a few ASes
> away when using multiple links.
> For example, on our side of the pond, using the current ARIN
> recommendations of /56s to end-users
> (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two8), a single /40 could
> represent up to 65k residential users. That's probably a few gigs of
> trafic and would be a good unit for TE. /36 is definitely way too big
> for this purpose.
> Any thoughts/experiences/ideas on this?
> /JF Videotron AS5769
More information about the ipv6-ops