[swinog] IPv6 de-aggregation
Hi SWINOG members, we're a LIR, we got a /32 from RIPE and we want to allocate /40s and /48s to customers. Only snag is that the customers will not have their Internet feed from us but from any Service Provider of their choice. The customers will have to convince their SPs (X, Y, Z) to route these non X,Y,Z or foreign prefixes. We're getting a lot of raised eyebrows about this. What's this about prefixes longer that /32 not being propagated? When I look at the IPv6 table I see: IPv6 Routing Table Summary - 8625 entries 5 local, 2 connected, 3 static, 0 RIP, 8615 BGP 0 IS-IS, 0 OSPF Number of prefixes: /0: 1, /8: 1, /10: 1, /12: 1, /16: 1, /19: 2, /20: 5, /21: 3 /22: 5, /23: 5, /24: 7, /25: 4, /26: 9, /27: 10, /28: 31, /29: 19 /30: 15, /31: 13, /32: 4049, /33: 97, /34: 87, /35: 93, /36: 242, /37: 7 /38: 50, /39: 22, /40: 385, /41: 12, /42: 18, /43: 34, /44: 151, /45: 15 /46: 75, /47: 45, /48: 3006, /49: 3, /50: 1, /52: 5, /56: 9, /64: 40 /126: 1, /128: 45 So where did all the /48s come from ... also one or two /40s... ?? What do you think about this? If you're a SP would you route the /48s or /40s from the customers? What about your upstream peers? Thanks in advance for your answers. John John Collins Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement EFD Bundesamt für Informatik und Telekommunikation BIT Basisprodukte Telekommunikation Netzplanung und Engineering ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPv6 de-aggregation
I'm really not into IPv6, but routing Prefixes from an AS which has no peering or transit relationship with you has never been a good idea in the IPv4 world. I'd be also interested if that's still true in the IPv6 world. Kind regards, Viktor On 27.04.2012 10:09, john.coll...@bit.admin.ch wrote: Hi SWINOG members, we're a LIR, we got a /32 from RIPE and we want to allocate /40s and /48s to customers. Only snag is that the customers will not have their Internet feed from us but from any Service Provider of their choice. The customers will have to convince their SPs (X, Y, Z) to route these non X,Y,Z or foreign prefixes. We're getting a lot of raised eyebrows about this. What's this about prefixes longer that /32 not being propagated? When I look at the IPv6 table I see: IPv6 Routing Table Summary - 8625 entries 5 local, 2 connected, 3 static, 0 RIP, 8615 BGP 0 IS-IS, 0 OSPF Number of prefixes: /0: 1, /8: 1, /10: 1, /12: 1, /16: 1, /19: 2, /20: 5, /21: 3 /22: 5, /23: 5, /24: 7, /25: 4, /26: 9, /27: 10, /28: 31, /29: 19 /30: 15, /31: 13, /32: 4049, /33: 97, /34: 87, /35: 93, /36: 242, /37: 7 /38: 50, /39: 22, /40: 385, /41: 12, /42: 18, /43: 34, /44: 151, /45: 15 /46: 75, /47: 45, /48: 3006, /49: 3, /50: 1, /52: 5, /56: 9, /64: 40 /126: 1, /128: 45 So where did all the /48s come from ... also one or two /40s... ?? What do you think about this? If you're a SP would you route the /48s or /40s from the customers? What about your upstream peers? Thanks in advance for your answers. John John Collins Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement EFD Bundesamt für Informatik und Telekommunikation BIT Basisprodukte Telekommunikation Netzplanung und Engineering ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPv6 de-aggregation
On 2012-04-27 10:09 , john.coll...@bit.admin.ch wrote: Hi SWINOG members, we’re a LIR, we got a /32 from RIPE You requested a Provider Aggregated (PA) prefix. It is all in the name. So where did all the /48s come from ... also one or two /40s... ?? Those are Provider Independent (PI) prefixes, these tend to be shorter. Greets, Jeroen ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPv6 de-aggregation
Hoi John, Interesting situation! On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:09 AM, john.coll...@bit.admin.ch wrote: Hi SWINOG members, we’re a LIR, we got a /32 from RIPE and we want to allocate /40s and /48s to customers. Only snag is that the customers will not have their Internet feed from us but from any Service Provider of their choice. The /32 you received from RIPE is implicitly provider aggregatable and cannot be deaggregated. Your downstreams could announce their /40 or /48 to their peers, but filtering is pretty strict with IPv6 community, so it's not expected that they will obtain global visibility via their X Y Z service provider. /0: 1, /8: 1, /10: 1, /12: 1, /16: 1, /19: 2, /20: 5, /21: 3 /22: 5, /23: 5, /24: 7, /25: 4, /26: 9, /27: 10, /28: 31, /29: 19 /30: 15, /31: 13, /32: 4049, /33: 97, /34: 87, /35: 93, /36: 242, /37: 7 /38: 50, /39: 22, /40: 385, /41: 12, /42: 18, /43: 34, /44: 151, /45: 15 /46: 75, /47: 45, /48: 3006, /49: 3, /50: 1, /52: 5, /56: 9, /64: 40 /126: 1, /128: 45 So where did all the /48s come from ... also one or two /40s... ?? There exists also provider independent IPv6 space -- it was contested for many years, but it is now possible at several RIRs to receive a /40 or /48 PI. What do you think about this? If you’re a SP would you route the /48s or /40s from the customers? What about your upstream peers? I would not advertise, but I would accept up to /40. Most upstreams I had dealt with accept only the PA block as a whole, ie no de-aggregation. -- Pim van Pelt p...@ipng.nl PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPv6 de-aggregation
On 27.04.2012 10:09, john.coll...@bit.admin.ch wrote: Hello, we’re a LIR, we got a /32 from RIPE and we want to allocate /40s and /48s to customers. Only snag is that the customers will not have their Internet feed from us but from any Service Provider of their choice. The customers will have to convince their SPs (X, Y, Z) to route these „non X,Y,Z” or “foreign“ prefixes. We’re getting a lot of “raised eyebrows” about this. What’s this about prefixes longer that /32 not being propagated? When I look at the IPv6 table I see: IPv6 Routing Table Summary - 8625 entries 5 local, 2 connected, 3 static, 0 RIP, 8615 BGP 0 IS-IS, 0 OSPF Number of prefixes: /0: 1, /8: 1, /10: 1, /12: 1, /16: 1, /19: 2, /20: 5, /21: 3 /22: 5, /23: 5, /24: 7, /25: 4, /26: 9, /27: 10, /28: 31, /29: 19 /30: 15, /31: 13, /32: 4049, /33: 97, /34: 87, /35: 93, /36: 242, /37: 7 /38: 50, /39: 22, /40: 385, /41: 12, /42: 18, /43: 34, /44: 151, /45: 15 /46: 75, /47: 45, /48: 3006, /49: 3, /50: 1, /52: 5, /56: 9, /64: 40 /126: 1, /128: 45 So where did all the /48s come from ... also one or two /40s... ?? Deaggregation and PIv6 prefixes (which are /48s usually). What do you think about this? If you’re a SP would you route the /48s or /40s from the customers? What about your upstream peers? If you were my paying customer insisting on getting a /40 or /48 from your PA space announced I would of course do so. But that's only half of the story, because others have to accept that. And there will be networks that don't. There is no real consensus on if and how much deaggregation from PA space should be allowed. As long as that is not there, we are filtering /36 from PA space. And I know others do, too. If you absolutely need to do this, make sure you announce the covering /32 somewhere. And make sure you do everything possible to prove the validity of those routes (proper route6-objects, maybe RPKI ROA, ...) Bernhard ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPv6 de-aggregation
Hi John, In my company we will accept or advertise upto /48, also most of our upstreams will do the same. As for routing sub-allocations from a different AS some providers do that some don`t, as you said they will have to be convinced (but it`s not really good practice for PA space). Regards, Fadi On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:09 AM, john.coll...@bit.admin.ch wrote: Hi SWINOG members, ** ** we’re a LIR, we got a /32 from RIPE and we want to allocate /40s and /48s to customers. Only snag is that the customers will not have their Internet feed from us but from any Service Provider of their choice. The customers will have to convince their SPs (X, Y, Z) to route these „non X,Y,Z” or “foreign“ prefixes. We’re getting a lot of “raised eyebrows” about this. What’s this about prefixes longer that /32 not being propagated? When I look at the IPv6 table I see: ** ** IPv6 Routing Table Summary - 8625 entries 5 local, 2 connected, 3 static, 0 RIP, 8615 BGP 0 IS-IS, 0 OSPF Number of prefixes: /0: 1, /8: 1, /10: 1, /12: 1, /16: 1, /19: 2, /20: 5, /21: 3 /22: 5, /23: 5, /24: 7, /25: 4, /26: 9, /27: 10, /28: 31, /29: 19 /30: 15, /31: 13, /32: 4049, /33: 97, /34: 87, /35: 93, /36: 242, /37: 7 /38: 50, /39: 22, /40: 385, /41: 12, /42: 18, /43: 34, /44: 151, /45: 15 /46: 75, /47: 45, /48: 3006, /49: 3, /50: 1, /52: 5, /56: 9, /64: 40** ** /126: 1, /128: 45 ** ** So where did all the /48s come from ... also one or two /40s... ?? ** ** What do you think about this? If you’re a SP would you route the /48s or /40s from the customers? What about your upstream peers? ** ** Thanks in advance for your answers. ** ** John ** ** John Collins ** ** Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement EFD Bundesamt für Informatik und Telekommunikation BIT Basisprodukte Telekommunikation Netzplanung und Engineering ** ** ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
