Re: v6 deagg

[Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>]

> From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
> Is deaggregation inherently undesirable?

I'd say yes when the only limit to deaggregation is /48.

Given the opportunity people will do whatever they see
fit at everyone elses expense

> What is the correct solution here? Deaggregate or allocate space you don't
> need?

Whichever comes with sensible deagg control. The desired effect is
people advertise exactly sufficient prefixes and, I'd say, a simple
universal mechanism for everyone else to limit them to that so they
don't feel the need to advertise more to prevent hijacks etc.

> Or some others solution, should route object creation be limited to LIR
> and be controlled by specific policy? It would allow inject information about
> the reason for it.

There is always a good reason to the person doing it.

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

Yes, strict would be best if based on good data. With no prefix length
police there is no good data, RIPE gave up and said /48 everywhere
removing the simpler mechanism to do this (I've not noticed what the
others are doing)

brandon