[afripv6-discuss] Are AfriNic's /48 being filtered?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Leo,

I see your point. However, I already got similar inputs from some people in
ARIN region. This doesn't mean that with the time the situation can change,
but the issue is that the policy *today* is not so useful as it should be
and didn't help the provision of critical IPv6 services, moreover, can be
against the stability of the deployment and raise negative view from service
providers and customers "oh, it doesn't work because it is IPv6, it is
broken".

I think operators had been educated to allow /32 or shorter prefixes, and
there will be a hard time to re-educate them. Not really sure if they are
unhappy with longer prefixes, but probably many of them want to make sure to
avoid more-specifics and PI may look like that, so somehow, yes, they may be
reluctant (and then not just and education issue) to carry prefixes longer
than /32.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Responder a: "leo.vegoda at icann.org" <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Fecha: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:02:24 +0200
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, "IPv6 in Africa
> <afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net>" <afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [afripv6-discuss] Are AfriNic's /48 being filtered?
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> On 27 Aug 2007, at 12:43, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
>> Hi Leo,
>> 
>> That will be an interesting discussion (RIRs guarantying
>> routability) and
>> I'm not saying I'm necessarily for it.
>> 
>> What I believe is that it seems a bit silly to me to make policies
>> that have
>> lot's of chances to be useless. Having a /48 for a critical
>> infrastructure
>> or PI, which both need to ensure that are reachable, is not good
>> versus the
>> cost of using a /32. The balance in terms of "total cost" for the
>> community
>> (wasting addresses vs. having lots of human resources educating or
>> instructing people about what to filter, etc., time spent). I will
>> much
>> prefer more relaxed policies even if they seem to be less
>> conservative in
>> terms of IPv6 addressing space.
> 
> I am not sure whether we have enough data to know whether there is a
> general problem or just a few isolated incidents. I expect that there
> are more data from the ARIN region as they have made more IPv6 PI
> assignments and for a longer time. Maybe we should wait and see if we
> are just in a 'running in' period before proposing a change to the
> policy.
> 
> More importantly though, do you believe that operators are happy to
> carry /32 IPv6 PI prefixes but not /48 IPv6 PI prefixes?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Leo Vegoda




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.