Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 04:17:19PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > It might get filtered if you do RPF filtering (but multihomed customers
> > usually don't, because it doesn't work), but reachability of the hosts
> > *behind* the IX is not a problem.
> 
> RPF is an additional issue, granted, but not the point here.
> 
> Traceroute will skip a hop or two, ie. those p-t-p links where these
> internal addresses are used; these might be crucial when debugging or
> tracing where the traffic goes.

No, it won't.  Unless you're RPF-filtering, you won't be able to "ping"
those IPs, but traceroute will show them just fine, including DNS.

> This might make (depending on the topology) a 15 second wait for the magic
> '* * *' combination.

No.  As with a traceroute showing RFC1918 IPs today - unless you explicitely 
filter those packets, the non-reachability won't harm traceroute.

[..]
> > Whether it's desireable to be able to traceroute *to* an IX address is
> > debateable (but that's not different from today), this is what wouldn't
> > work.
> 
> Different from today how?  Not necessarily.  One can use global addresses
> where you can traceroute to without problems.

Quite a number of IXPs do not want their transit network to be announced
into the global table.  So that's what you will have with IPv6 as well.

If an IXP wants to use globally routed addresses, he can always become
a LIR and apply for a /35.  What we're talking about is for those IXPs
that need a /64 and do not want to see / need to have it routed globally.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299