[LACNIC/Politicas] Pol í tica de publicaciones de bloques IPv6

Wed Jan 17 16:47:24 BRST 2007

Creo que Marla ha exagerado un poco con eso de "many", pues es la primera
vez que veo en la lista de nanog este problema siendo presentado ...

Yo creo que hay que esperar mas comentarios ... De todos modos, te esta
diciendo lo mismo que yo he dicho en cierto modo, que si hacemos eso, nos
encontramos con un problema MUCHO mas grave.

Creo que si intentamos lanzar la propuesta, no seria aprobada en todas las
regiones y como consecuencia, tu desagregacion seria visible a tus upstreams
pero no necesariamente mas alla. Eso no resolveria tu problema globalmente e
incluso lo complicaria porque filtraria tu trafico, luego no es una
solucion.

Igual compensa, por el momento, dado que no vas a tener mucho trafico, tal y
como tu mismo comentabas, y que probablemente por ello no sea todavia un
problema "real" para ningun ISP, que no intentes hacer balanceo en IPv6,
sino dejar a BGP.

De todos modos yo esperaria a tener mas comentarios ... Acabo de ver otro de
Pekka Savola.

Saludos,
Jordi

> De: Nicolás Antoniello <nicolas at antel.net.uy>
> Organización: MEI - ANTELDATA
> Responder a: <nantoniello at antel.net.uy>, LACNIC Policy mailling list
> <politicas at lacnic.net>
> Fecha: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:59:55 -0200 (Hora de verano de Uruguay)
> Para: <politicas at lacnic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Política de publicaciones de bloques IPv6
> 
> Estimados,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Que opinan?
> 
> 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 6.5.1.1.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.
> 
> Regards
> Marla Azinger
> Frontier Communications
> ARIN Advisory Council
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Nicolás Antoniello
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:23 AM
> To: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: IPv6 section of ARIN Number Resource Policy (Sec 6.5.1.1.c)
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This question is about the IPv6 section of ARIN Number Resource Policy
> Manual.
> 
>> From the manual (Section 6.5.1.1.c):
> 
> -----
> 6.5.1.1. 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
> different links.
> 
> 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
> the policy.
> 
> What do you think? Do you have a similar problem?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nicolas Antoniello.
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.