[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

v6 deagg

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Saku Ytti wrote:

> Correct solution is not to use some so called 'strict' ipv6 filters, 
> which break Internet, by not allowing discontinuous pops having 
> connectivity.

Before, the practical level of de-agg was at /24 for IPv4. This meant only 
larger organisations could do it.

With automation in the network space increasing, and with /48 being 
justifiable to any site, and with /48 being the typical DFZ routing 
filter, we now have the possibility of a lot more entities seeing IP 
address based multihoming and "PI" being possible.

I don't like where this is headed. There are millions of entities that are 
justifiable to announce a /48 into DFZ. Do we want this to happen?

By allowing it, we're not putting any pressure to invent solutions for 
graceful address migration with continous services, and instead putting 
the pressure on the DFZ infrastructure. Is this the correct tradeoff?

How many smaller than /32 in the IPv6 DFZ do we allow before we need to 
start to worry? In these discussions I frequently interact with people who 
don't want to limit things until they are actually a problem. So when will 
this become a problem? 100k de-agged routes? 200k? 500k? 1M?

>From a technical point of view, I have little interest in my router 
handling the fact that an office at the other side of the planet shut down 
their router, and learning this via DFZ.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se