[LACNIC/Politicas] Política de publicaciones de bloques IPv6
nicolas at antel.net.uy
Wed Jan 17 14:59:55 BRST 2007
Envié la pregunta al foro de nanog... les adjunto la primer respuesta que
llegó y desde mi punto de vista, hasta que encontremos una mejor solución,
sería prudente modificar la política a nivel de todos los RIR para
permitir la división de prefijos en las publicaciones.
Del foro de nanog:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:50:34 -0500
From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
To: nantoniello at antel.net.uy, nanog at merit.edu
Subject: RE: IPv6 section of ARIN Number Resource Policy (Sec 188.8.131.52.c)
Nicolas- This is a problem for many networks and ISP's. It is identified
as a problem and the solution is currently being worked on at IETF and the
IAB. The solution could be as simple as allowing deaggregation, however
due to routing architecture and its limits, we as a community are looking
into a more stable solution.
If you would like to review the current solution sets that exist today of
which people in the IETF community are working with, please read the
article at http://nro.org/documents/nro42.html Be advised, none of the
solutions on this document are completely sounds as they are written
today. We need to work as a community to expand upon one or more of them
to create a GOOD solution.
ARIN Advisory Council
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:23 AM
To: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 section of ARIN Number Resource Policy (Sec 184.108.40.206.c)
This question is about the IPv6 section of ARIN Number Resource Policy
>From the manual (Section 220.127.116.11.c):
18.104.22.168. Initial allocation criteria
c. Plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will
assign IPv6 address space, by advertising that connectivity through its
single aggregated address allocation
We have a problem with this policy and we would like to know if any other
ISP experienced the same...
The problem raises when a RIR assign a /28 prefix (for example) to an ISP
which has 3 internet links with 3 different carriers (tier 1 carriers, for
example) using BGP publications.
Acording to ARIN (and most other RIRs) policy, the ISP must advertise
through all the 3 links the /28 without the possibility of dissagregation.
The problem with this policy is that by doing this, the ISP loses control
of the traffic, not being able to distribute the traffic over the 3
A /28 prefix may have a lot of incoming traffic associated to it, so I
believe the dissagregation (subnets) of the prefix should be allowed by
What do you think? Do you have a similar problem?
More information about the Politicas