If we think that multihomed end user networks should be able to
multihome with BGP in IPv6 (which I do), wouldn't a better solution be
to just announce the portable /48 into BGP? Everyone I've talked to
realizes that since there's no covering aggregate for portable /48
assignments received from RIRs, they need to accept those in BGP to
ensure global reachability. Therefore, I don't see filtering at /35
across-the-board as something that people will continue doing for long,
if they're still doing it today.
So, because of that, I don't think we should be giving out /32's to end
user networks that simply need to be able to multihome. For those
networks, a /48 (or a slightly larger network, if justified based on
number of discrete multihomed networks) seems to make more sense to me.
-Scott
Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
> At least, I see one problem with the existing policy, i.e. if I'm an
> end user network of IPv6 (IPv4 too) and I may not do any further
> assignment but I need to do multihoming, I can only get a /48 portable
> assignment. However, some IPv6 networks filter out announcements
> longer than /35 (or other prefix length). What can I do now?
>
> This proposal does solve this problem (or if there is change to
> portable assignment policy).
>
> Che-Hoo
>
> On Jan 26, 2008 5:54 AM, Jonny Martin <jonny@jonnynet.net> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>> <mailto:jonny@jonnynet.net>> wrote:
>
> On 26/01/2008, at 2:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > The proposal 'Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation
> criteria' has
> > been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented during
> > the
> > Policy SIG sessions at APNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February
> > 2008.
> >
> > The proposal's history can be found at:
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-057-v001.html
> >
>
> Now I wholeheartedly support the deployment of v6, however currently
> I fail to see the actual requirement for this proposal. Current
> wording is purely for a *plan* for 200 v6 customers. I have plans
> for a lot of things. Reality is often quite different to those plans.
>
> I don't see this proposal directly promoting the *deployment* of v6.
> If members feel that the biggest obstacle in the way to deploying -
> in any capacity - v6 was justifying an initial allocation, then how
> are they going to get on when it comes to actually implementing it.
>
> Are there any members out there who have not been able to obtain v6
> space under the current policy? If there is demonstrably a real
> problem here then I am happy to change my view on this policy.
> Otherwise I'm going to expend my efforts on actual problems.
>
> Cheers,
> Jonny.
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>