Re: IPv6 policy at LACNIC( was: RE: IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
Thomas Narten <narten-r/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.apnic.global-v6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"marcelo bagnulo" <[email protected]> writes: > > > > - IPv6 policy: > > > > "Announce a single block to the Internet" > > > > as long as there is no other multihoming solution for end users and/or > > resellers, it seems to be generally accepted practice to announce > > /40s or even /48s out of an ISPs PA block as more specific. The > > policy shouldn't try to enforce things that either can't be enforced, > > or will seriously harm acceptance of IPv6 (due to multihoming customers > > not changing to v6). > Well, curent policy states as the c condition to initial allocation the > following: > "c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it > will assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its > single aggregated address allocation; and" > So, the announce a sinlge block requirement is not introduced by this policy > proposal, but it was already there in the policy. The intention of the wording "by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and" is to ensure that all the addresses covered by the RIR allocation are reachable via a single route based on the (single) aggregate allocation. In particular, it was intended to ensure that addresses assigned out of that range not _require_ multiple longer prefixes be injected into the global routing system in order for the idividual sites be reachable. This does _not_ mean that longer prefixes cannot or should not be injected into the routing system. The point is that it should not be _required_ that the routing system accept such longer prefixes in order to get ubiquitous reachability. > Two question, then: > 1- Do you think that there is difference among the policy and the proposal > because the way it is stated? > 2- In case there is no difference, do you think we should also change the > policy and remove the requirement of a singla announcement? The requirement for a single announcement should be there, but it should not also imply that longer (more-specific) advertisements are not allowed. Thomas _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6