nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:59:43 +0100
On 5 feb 2009, at 20:06, Joe Abley wrote:
4) Obtain PA space and do what you're doing with v4.
5) Obtain PI space and do what you're doing with v4.
(4) is problematic because filtering long prefixes in v6 seems to be more energetic than it is in v4. (5) is problematic if you don't qualify for PI space.
Better hope the RRG work (LISP, maybe) works out, then.I'm sure some people will relax their filters but I'm also convinced that a lot of people won't, at least not until a consensus on a good prefix length filtering strategy emerges. The RIR policies are such that if you allow /48s you're dead in the water if someone tries to inject a large number of those on purpose or it happens by accident in a particular unfortunate way.
The reason I think people won't accept long prefixes is because of the above, or because (like me) they feel IPv6 PI was a mistake, or, the main contributor to routing table bloat, laziness. And the reason they won't care is that if an IPv6 destination returns !N applications that try both IPv6 and IPv4 fall back on IPv4 without a noticeable delay so outgoing sessions aren't affected. (Incoming sessions have to time out though, no ICMPs back to the originator for those.)
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Roger Marquis (Feb 04)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mark Andrews (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Martin Hannigan (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Christopher Morrow (Feb 04)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Marshall Eubanks (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Christopher Morrow (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Joe Abley (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Roger Marquis (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Roger Marquis (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 06)