[routing-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space)

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:23:44AM +0000, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 09:42:21PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 07:10:02PM +0000, Job Snijders wrote:
> > > 1/ What is the ROI? I think there is only a few prefixes in the
> > > default-free zone that are managed by RIPE NCC, but not assigned or
> > > allocated by RIPE NCC. So putting this machinery in place might not
> > > have that much benefit, while the cost of 'getting it wrong' could
> > > be substantial.
> > 
> > This was my first thought as well, but then I discovered this IPv6
> > thing :)
> 
> Other than that there is lots of unassigned space in IPv6, and no
> shortage, what is the relevance? Did you take a look at how many
> unassigned/unallocated IPv6 prefixes (managed by RIPE NCC) are actually
> in the DFZ?

I ran the numbers, as far as I can tell we only have a handful of IPv6
prefixes in the default-free zone that are RIPE NCC managed space, and
in the 'reserved' category (looked at today's delegated-latest)

Below is the list of those IPv6 prefxes and the AS_PATH towards the
origin:

2a02:4680::/48        6762 31133 25159 42288
2a02:4680:2::/48      6762 31133 59533
2a02:4680:11::/48     3356 43727 62410
2a02:4680:12::/48     1299 1299 20485 48034
2a02:4680:1e::/48     174 31133 44941
2a02:4680:2e::/48     1299 1299 20485 51291
2a02:4680:31::/48     6762 31133 44941
2a02:4680:40::/48     1299 42861 35598
2a06:7780::/29        1299 3302

So we really have to wonder whether this is worth it, or whether a few
emails or phone calls can also solve the issue.

Kind regards,

Job