Hi Sasha,<div><br></div><div>Sure, if you apply that definition that's another way to skin the cat; Cost as a factor comes to mind on the below - obviously much cheaper to have a single /32, yet being where we are and the lowest common denominator tending to rule, obviously that just needs to be understood as a cost on doing business, and as an architectural consideration for enterprises, content providers or other.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One use-case that is valid globally for v6 TE and one I'm sure we're all or will be impacted by - DDoS. </div><div>- Using TE to pull an impacted /48 or other /36 or /xy whatever is very valid</div>
<div>- Getting that Chinese, Russian, USA or international traffic away from your other customers to be cleaned</div><div>- It's a use-case commonly used globally for v4 DDoS TE ie. advert of a /24 or multiples of to pull impacted traffic into a cleaning centre</div>
<div>- Yes off-ramping and advert of a /32 and de-avert in other places will work - assuming you have the capacity, it's just not a desirable scenario.</div><div>- Perhaps it's a moot issue and the TE use-case will simply work we'll enough with the majority of the v6 world accepting /48's;</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thoughts?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>Mick<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Sascha Lenz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:slz@baycix.de" target="_blank">slz@baycix.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
><br>
> >> I specifically said I don't see a valid use case for *globally*<br>
> > advertising<br>
> >> more specifics.<br>
> • Single provider or enterprise allocated a /32<br>
> • Multiple independent global locations eg. PNG, India, New Zealand, US<br>
> • Each site advertising out a /36<br>
> • Requirement for each site is too large for a /48 allocation.<br>
> • Advert of a covering may have some very undesirable results<br>
> • Most networks it will work today will they'll accept the routes in the above approach.<br>
> • 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?<br>
> • 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?<br>
> • What's your suggestion as to BCP for the scenario?<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>i'm not sure if i understand your points in the first place, but why would an<br>
ISP have three separate networks but only use one allocation, and why would and enterprise work with a PA allocation instead of PI assignments?<br>
<br>
A single provider, if you mean an ISP has a single network, otherwise it's multiple ISPs by (my) definition, perhaps multiple local ISPs<br>
sharing the same name but not being the same legal entity or AS number.<br>
Each separate local/regional entity then would become member of the appropriate RIR and receive their own /32 or bigger allocation to<br>
aggregate the local traffic.<br>
<br>
A single enterprise is an end-user and doesn't aggregate assignments, so they can always apply for a separate PI assignment of the appropriate size from each responsible RIR, /48 or shorter.<br>
<br>
One of the differences between IPv4 is that de-aggregating an IPv6 /32 or shorter into /48 is much worse than even de-aggregating even an IPv4 /16 into /24s - be it fat fingers or intentional Traffic Engineering shit.<br>
<br>
<br>
But perhaps you can enlighten me where i misunderstood your scenario.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards<br>
<br>
Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]<br>
Senior System- & Network Architect<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>