[AusNOG] another ipv6 Q
Joseph Goldman
joe at apcs.com.au
Thu Jul 3 16:12:05 EST 2014
Hi Skeeve,
I did read it below - I was asking for confirmation wasn't trying to
sound daft or contradict you.
My main question for confirmation was, that I should perhaps request a
larger block from APNIC to then split that into /32's to hand out to my
multiple POP's (say a /30 or /28 or something). Luckily I currently have
a lot of IPv4 so requesting more won't cost more, just trying to
determine best way forward for the company with an IPv6 deployment,
across cities/states/countries.
Thanks,
Joe
On 03/07/14 16:06, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> Did you read my policy below.
>
> There is no breaking up the /32. You essentially get another
> allocation.. a /48 or something else to use at other sites. That will
> come from a pool of addresses which will be able to be routed.
>
> No, it is not possible to request to be allowed to announce that /32
> in smaller blocks.
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
> skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com <mailto:skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com> ;
> www.eintellegonetworks.com <http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
> <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
>
> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog:
> www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/>
>
>
> The Experts Who The Experts Call
>
> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud- Consulting- IPv4 Brokering
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au
> <mailto:joe at apcs.com.au>> wrote:
>
> Keeping this on-list, even though specific to my situation, in
> case it answers others questions:
>
> To chime in on this Skeeve, I currently have a /32 assigned from
> APNIC (inside 2400::/12), so by what your saying I can only
> advertise the /32 and never anything bigger (smaller, lol)?
>
> Should I be requesting a larger /30 from APNIC so I have the
> opportunity to split /32's across sites?
>
> If I own a /32 how do I manage multi-homing in regards to trying
> to manage inbound traffic? A decent, easy method of this now is
> path prepending different /24's on your transit providers to try
> and artificially generate more traffic on a peer, how would I go
> about similar things in IPv6? Or is this where having multiple
> /32's comes in to effect and doing the same, but at the /32 level?
>
> Is it possible to request blocks from APNIC that fall within a
> range that is allowed to go down to /48? Or is this just
> problematic in general?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> On 03/07/14 15:35, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
>> OK... so here goes.
>>
>> My opinion is that what SAGE is doing is well meaning, but
>> ultimately problematic.
>>
>> They should not be breaking down their /32 for members to
>> announce /48's.
>>
>> The reasoning for this was a significant part of my policy
>> proposal 083 a couple of years ago
>> (https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-083)
>>
>> The issue was that if I got a /32, I was not able to break it
>> down for announcement if I want to put part of it in a different
>> (non-connected/aggregated) location. So the policy allows you to
>> get another block to announce in that location.
>>
>> The key issue here is that SAGE's /32 allocation is from a block,
>> where if strict BOGON listing is used, means their member routes
>> will be dropped.
>>
>> For example, the current ipv6 BOGON list is:
>> (http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
>> <http://www.space.net/%7Egert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html>)
>>
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict deny 3ffe::/16 le 128
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001:500::/30 ge 48 le 48
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict deny 2001:db8::/32 le 128
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001::/32
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001::/16 ge 35 le 35
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001::/16 ge 19 le 32
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001:0678::/29 le 48
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001:0c00::/23 ge 48 le 48
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001:13c7:6000::/36 le 48
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001:13c7:7000::/36 le 48
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001:43f8::/29 ge 40 le 48
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2002::/16
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2003::/16 ge 19 le 32
>> *ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2400::/12 ge 19 le 32*
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2600::/12 ge 19 le 32
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2610::/23 ge 24 le 32
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2620::/23 ge 40 le 48
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2800::/12 ge 19 le 32
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2a00::/12 ge 19 le 32
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2801:0000::/24 le 48
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2c00::/12 ge 19 le 32
>> ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict deny 0::/0 le 128
>> If you look at the block SAGE is in, their block, in strict form,
>> means anything smaller than a /32 will be dropped.
>>
>> Members who get a /48 from APNIC are from a different pool, 2001
>> somewhere, which has a /48 length.
>>
>> So... sorry SAGE, but you pooched this one.
>>
>> ...Skeeve
>>
>> *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
>> skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com
>> <mailto:skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com> ;
>> www.eintellegonetworks.com <http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/>
>>
>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>>
>> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks
>> <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>> <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve>
>>
>> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog:
>> www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/>
>>
>>
>> The Experts Who The Experts Call
>>
>> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud- Consulting- IPv4 Brokering
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Jeroen Massar <jeroen at massar.ch
>> <mailto:jeroen at massar.ch>> wrote:
>>
>> On 2014-07-02 23:41, Robert Hudson wrote:
>> > > So whats the min mask length. So it I wanted to
>> multihome would I be
>> > > okay with 1 /48 or will up streams take /49-64 ?
>> >
>> > /48 is the accepted minimum.
>> >
>> >
>> > Which is why SAGE-AU settled on offering an IPv6 /48 to
>> every member
>> > (and yes, this does mean that as a business, if all you
>> want is an IPv6
>> > /48, you can get a completely portable /48 allocation from
>> SAGE-AU for
>> > $165 a year instead of paying the APNIC membership fee if
>> the member you
>> > pay for agrees to utilise the allocation for your business
>> purposes).
>>
>> Quick check:
>>
>> inet6num: 2406:C500::/32
>> netname: TSAGOA
>> descr: The System Administrators Guild of Australia
>> country: AU
>>
>> That is a single /32, out of the PA block of APNIC. Hence,
>> unless you
>> convince every single ISP in the world to accept it, the only
>> thing you
>> can announce is that /32, nothing else.
>>
>> More specifics will properly be dropped.
>>
>> Please don't spam the BGP tables with more specifics. If you
>> need PI, go
>> get a distinct PI block for that site from your favourite LIR.
>>
>> Greets,
>> Jeroen
>>
>>
>> Oh and yes, it will be a lot of fun when some large company
>> is going to
>> split and then have to split up their IPv6 address space,
>> somebody will
>> be renumbering a lot of hosts... ;)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20140703/c46422c3/attachment.html>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list