IPv6 BGP TE (was Couldflare routing problems)

Mick O'Rourke mkorourke at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 01:11:22 CEST 2012

Hi Nick,

> >     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.
> Doesn't matter whether _you_ agree with it or not.  The point is that there
> is a nontrivial although unspecified number of service providers who filter
> along RIR allocation sizes.  Unless a supernet is advertised with
> connectivity back to the each of the smaller subnets, connectivity to those
> subnets will be arbitrarily spotty.

The point of the thread I've felt to be slightly different, that's where we
are yes - it's the current state of play.
I'd rather discuss can we enact change or work together as a collective to
find a suitable a generally agreed BCP middle ground? RIPE-532 seems to be
that BCP middle ground, yet there is disagreement around it's definition
and application - the result being what you've described.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20120622/4e701236/attachment.html 

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list