[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 09:06:12PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 03:05:08PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 02:26:40PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > 
> > > Not that much.  One could apply more-specific filters to routes coming 
> > > from other regions, so it *would* save something.  Or the customer might
> > 
> > What's this "regions" you speak about ? We're a fairly small (in the global
> > scheme of things) transit provider and we're connected to 4 continents. 
> > Are you thinking about toy ISPs with one transit and a connection to the
> > local IX ?
> 
> I was speaking of RIR regions (which is the only thing that a router
> can filter on, provided ICANN will eventually start allocating decent
> chunks).
> 

Exactly. All this discussion becomes somewhat moot if the trend of /23s goes
on much longer. Not to mention you lose hope of being able to recognize
where an address is supposed to be without db lookups, but that's out of
this scope.

> 
> There are different ISPs out there - those that are obviously large
> enough to not be called "toy ISPs", but still only active in one or
> two regions - so why should an ISP that's only active in the US carry
> more specifics from APNIC or Europe?  Or vice versa?
> 

Fair enough. 
>From a routing perspective, if you have 2 transit providers and ask them to
announce default + clients/direct peerings you get a somewhat similar
situation to IPv6 RIR prefixes + local specifics. Or am I missing something
?

-- 
Carlos Morgado <chbm at cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594
GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B  599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2
The views expressed above do not bind my employer.