[ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting

> > 1) Own customer routes - these can be any prefix length between /48 and
> > /64
> > 2) Other LIRs aggregates in same RIR region - these are /32 and bigger
> > 3) Supernets for other RIR regions - these are /12 or larger
>
> ... geo adressing? :-)

In a way yea. We have known reservations per RIR region.

> anyway, about #3, how should be it implemented in practice? Who should
> carry others route in DFZ between regions, and who should distribute it to
> others? Should RIPE/ARIN/APNIC etc "pay" someone to make region<>region
> communication possible?

For the local LIRs I believe they already pay for this - they pay someone for
IP transit. So this model seems to work for smaller LIRs - exactly the group
of which many have stated they do not have the funding to continiously upgrade
their equipment - especially not at the expense of someone else wanting PI space.
Apart from picking one transit party over another unless I'm mistaken LIRs already
default out to a bigger party these days already.

The big boys - the parties that sell IP transit and hence connect in multiple
regions - they would not to carry several more routes. I wonder if carrying
/12s per region there would be sufficient - probably not. But on the other hand
these are usually the parties that already have the bigger routers anyways.

> and yeah, the idea is sound and I agree but can't really see an easy way
> to implement it today...

It is probably far from ideal - just came to me as a means to fix or at least
bypass a hurdle for at least the LIRs that can otherwise not keep up with a growing
routing table.

Jasper

Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer