[ipv6-wg] IPv6 policies & BGP announcements

Clement Cavadore wrote:
[..]
> It would sure be better. I saw a /42 announced by RIPE, which is part of 
> another LIR's /32 sTLA. Although there is no route6: object for it, I 
> guess most of IPv6-aware networks do care about reaching RIPE's IPv6 
> servers. Seeing that announcement gave me guidelines regarding BCP
> in doing IPv6 multihoming without being LIR.

The RIPE _NCC_ did this as they don't qualify for an allocation
themselves, this as they are not an LIR nor are they anywhere near
anything that would justify for something much larger than a /48 (I
wonder why they got a /42 in this case but there prolly is some reason
for it) It is good to see that RIPE NCC follow and adhere to their own
guidelines unlike other organizations. As such they only get a small
chunk of space and that from a LIR. They can choose to announce it and
have a route6 object for it, and in case that announcement gets filtered
the /32 BGP announcement from the LIR will cover it and route it to them.

There is one problem with this setup though. If 'good/fast' providers
filter your more specific, then most likely only 'bad/slow' providers
will transit it to others, who will use the more specific and thus the
bad/slow providers. As such announcing a more specific can cause that
your prefix becomes broken due to the better ISP's filtering the more
specific out.

> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> ARIN offers IPv6 PI space, perhaps you can get a /48 prefix which is
>>> supposed to be globally routable from them.
> 
> Well, since I am not in ARIN-land, it wouldn't be really normal for me
> to ask for an ARIN-PIv6. Let's assume RIPE will find a good solution for
> people in my case :).

What exactly is "your case"?

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20071127/026b6478/attachment.sig>