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/[email protected]/
[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Anne Lord
anne at apnic.net
Wed Dec 10 02:15:56 CET 2003
hi The ranges for APNIC (IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs) are documented at: http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html See the 'Notes' section for details of the 'special' ranges. cheers, Anne _____________________________________________________________________ Anne Lord, Manager, Policy Liaison <anne at apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100 http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, David Kessens wrote: > > Jeroen, > > Would you be willing to put a presentation together regarding all the > 'special' ranges of addresses that you have found/know about so that > we can have a discussion regarding this topic on the next RIPE meeting? > > Thanks, > > David K. > PS The RIPE meeting is coming up in January so I am very much interested in > input for agenda items! > --- > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:20:20AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything >/35. > > > > Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries. > > > > Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not > > > > be accepting anything smaller (/33, /34 etc) > > > > > > There is no commonly agreed-upon best practice for this yet. > > > > Some ISP's do it, most don't. > > > > Btw CH-SUNRISE-20031124 = 2001:1700::/27, so Libertel isn't the > > biggest girl on the block anymore with their /31 :) > > > > > We do *not* suppress more-specifics from those address blocks, as we > > > think it's a legitimate wish for certain networks to be multihomed, > > > and currently there is no other solution than to go for the pragmatic > > > approach, and just announce a /40 or even /48. > > > > > > I agree that things that are more specific than a /48 should not be > > > out there. > > > > Indeed. And yes there are ISP's announcing /128's etc. > > And private ASN's for that matter or even using them as transit. > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > As you cite my page, you will also know that it does not make a specific > > > recommendation on the subject of "filtering things between /35 and /48"... > > > > Yups and I fully support that argument. > > > > If it was done we would currently see 413 prefixes, those are the > > 'allocated' prefixes that are getting announced. > > In GRH each of the ~30 peers have an average of 459 prefixes. > > Checking just know, the highest number of prefixes send to GRH > > was 515 prefixes, which is far from the 20k or even 30k if all > > the ASN's would announce 1 IPv6 prefix. > > > > At the moment that is certainly no problem and it shouldn't be > > for years to come, unless IPv6 really takes off. Google/Doom3 IPv6 anyone? > > > > The biggest advantage that IPv6 already has is that a single > > ISP already gets enough space, thus it doesn't need to > > > > Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch at muada.com] wrote: > > > > > On 8-dec-03, at 22:01, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > > > > There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything >/35. > > > > Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries. > > > > Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not > > > > be accepting anything smaller (/33, /34 etc) > > > > > > So how are ISPs supposed to know what the allocation size for a > > > particular prefix is? This type of filtering only works if the filter > > > list is relatively short and pretty much never changes. Anything else > > > and the cure is worse than the disease. > > > > The proposed "Redistribution of Cooperative Filtering Information" draft > > could help out there which allows one to redistribute 'good prefix' lists. > > See https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/idr/current/msg00201.html > > for the draft or http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/redisfilter.ppt for > > the presentation given in Minneapolis. > > > > Without that or a similar system, it would be a pain indeed. > > That's why I pointed to Gert's page which has a better and > > currently working solution. > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > Currently the !3! IX blocks (2001:7f8::/32 + 2001:504::/32 + > > > > 2001:7fa::/32) > > > > are seen being announced in pieces too. Maybe these IX blocks, which > > > > are common already could be used for assigning 'critical infra' from? > > > > > > Note that announcing the actual prefix for an internet exchange subnet > > > tickles an undesirable BGP feature in places where the prefix isn't > > > filtered, so these prefixes are best not announced. > > > > As far as I can see with the GRH tools etc, all the prefixes > > that are allocated as "IX Prefixes" and those that are in use > > are currently visible worldwide. > > > > > The allocations seem to be /48s and not /64s though, so in > > > practice this shouldn't be a problem but still no reason why > > > these should be globally visible. > > > > The only reason I heared so far is so that people in Tokio can > > ping the IX interface in London or a similar kind of scenario. > > They argue that it is handy for debugging. My take is that if > > it isn't your network, you can't fix it either, so if a traceroute > > ends on that box, contact them, they can really figure it out. > > > > > Root nameservers are a very different story of course... > > > > A /32 contains 65k /48's, so these IX blocks could provide for > > enough /48's for 65k IX's, thus unless that switch at the back > > of my desk, which connects 'neighbours' too is to be called an > > IX, because they have a linux router and me too and they speak > > BGP is going to be called an IX it shouldn't be a problem if > > the same block is used for 26? and maybe 3 tld servers per country. > > > > At least everybody will know that that /32 will have more specifics. > > > > Greets, > > Jeroen > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. > > Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen at unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ > > > > iQA/AwUBP9UHMymqKFIzPnwjEQLiLwCgta1mOkrixvXcZD8mTLheePv9ERYAn3GK > > Rt2Hp+dk8HVBDuFaub0lf6Rt > > =OqJO > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]