On 3/29/2014 10:29 AM, Joe St Sauver wrote:
... Moreover, given BGP route selection rules, I'm not particularly disturbed by the presence of that covering announcement: any more specific route should immediately be preferred to a broad covering route of the sort employed by the IPv6 darknet research effort.
If the BGP listener is able to hear the more-specific route. If the more-specific is temporarily missing, the traffic goes to the wrong place. If the more-specific is not heard due to length filters at the listener, the traffic also goes to the wrong place. In both cases, that is production network traffic being diverted from where it should be going.
I believe that ARIN acted properly in supporting this network research, and I'd be quite disappointed if ARIN (and other RIRs) discontinued support for research of this sort, particularly when carefully done by leading academic networking research organizations.
I don't see how ARIN had any business at all supporting research other than to issue *unique* address space to researchers. In this case, it wasn't unique, and so there was no way ARIN could supply that space under the existing numbering policy, and so ARIN should have said "I'm sorry, we've issued addresses in that space, so we can't issue you 2600::/12 as a unique assignment under section 11 of the NRPM... if you'd like to announce a covering route in that space, we encourage you to talk to the organizations that are already using parts of that space, and the organizations to which you intend to announce that route to"
Matthew Kaufman _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
