IPv6 PI allocation

[Mohacsi Janos]

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Daniel Suchy wrote:

>
>>> RFC3178 exists in some kind of fantasy world.  Quoting from it, "3. Basic 
>>> mechanism": "We assume that our site is connected to 2 ISPs, ISP-A and 
>>> ISP-B."
>>> 
>>> This is an unrealistic requirement for the reasons I spelled out (the need 
>>> to connect to an IXP,
>>
>> 	no need to connect to any of IXes (by IXP you mean Internet eXchange
>> 	Points - am I right?).
>
> Why you imply no need here? PI is not only about connection to _two_ ISPs. 
> IXP connection is  RFC3178 suggests choice of some providers _forever_ or for 
> a very long time or implements need to renumber whole network in case of ISP 
> change (which can come on). And it's not easy to renumber large network. Just 
> think about reasons, why some networks chose IPv4 PI address space.
>
>>> plus the need for independence from any ISP's network
>> 	this is not fullfilled by RFC3178, that's true.  see below.
>>> - you cannot withdraw an announcement from a particular broken upstream 
>>> except by pulling all DNS records).
>> 	you can workaround this with RFC3178.  the assumption is that ISP-A
>> 	and ISP-B are having transit relationship with each other, that's 
>> all.
>
> Due to security reasons are many providers doing ingress filtering (it's not 
> a rare problem). RFC3178 assumes that there are NOT ingress filters for 
> multihomed networks at ISP side - but this is a security issue and it's not 
> acceptable these days.

I think this can be solved by proper agreement with the provider and some 
necessary configuration: one more prefix accepted...

Regards,

Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F  4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882