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

[Alain Patrick AINA]

> 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.

If they are "probably" afraid of the explosion of the routing table and 
filtering at /32 , they are breaking things for folks who want to advertise 
longer for various legitimate reasons. /48 folks are just new victims.

Based on the current allocations policies  they should have set filters to :

- filter  /33 or longer prefixes
- Filter /49 or longer prefixes

But in all the cases,  i suspect that we are on the same  boat heading to what  
you  want to avoid:  "oh, it doesn't work because it is IPv6, it is broken".

and yes, because it is ipv6 and we don't have yet a  scalable solution for the 
addressing, routing, traffic engineering etc...

--alain