IPv6 BGP TE (was Couldflare routing problems)

Mick O'Rourke mkorourke at gmail.com
Thu Jun 21 23:30:12 CEST 2012

> >> I specifically said I don't see a valid use case for *globally*
> > advertising
>> more specifics.

   - Single provider or enterprise allocated a /32
   - Multiple independent global locations eg. PNG, India, New Zealand, US
   - Each site advertising out a /36
   - Requirement for each site is too large for a /48 allocation.
   - Advert of a covering may have some very undesirable results

   - Most networks it will work today will they'll accept the routes in the
   above approach.
   - The approach has some parallels IPv4. People are going to do this and
   take v4 practice and apply to v6 if within general community guidelines -
   and why not, why re-invent the wheel?
   - Networks likes yours be they teir2/3/4 that don't accept a full table
   in the v4 world would have a covering route with ACLs potentially used for
   bogons. Why not for v6?
   - What's your suggestion as to BCP for the scenario?

> Well, the consistent global policy is that prefixes up to the
> minimum-allocation size
> of the RIRs are accepted.
> Can't say I agree with your statement.

Kind Regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20120622/7de19a5e/attachment.html 

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list