This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Tue Mar 1 21:09:18 CET 2005
On 28-feb-05, at 17:49, Daniel Roesen wrote: >>> You can also ask the other transit upstream to announce your /48 for >>> you. >> Mind you, I prefer to advertise myself, and, as discussed, am in the >> lucky position that my transit ISPs are reasonable. > Unfortunately this mainly leads to bad connectivity as half of the > IPv6 world filters /48. As long as your two transit ISPs accept the /48 from eachother, you'll have redundancy so this is not fatal. And if we can write up a nice document that outlines how people can filter out "remote" /48s because having those in their routing tables has no added value, while allowing "close by" /48s that help optimize traffic flow, this could work out very well. The good part is that if the uptake of this way of multihoming isn't excessive, there is no need to filter at all and we're all happy. But if it gets out of hand, people can filter without breaking connectivity. So this takes having to correctly guess the amount of multihoming in the future out of the equation.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]