[AusNOG] another ipv6 Q

[Jeroen Massar]

On 2014-07-03 01:35, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> OK... so here goes.
> 
> My opinion is that what SAGE is doing is well meaning, but ultimately
> problematic.

Fully agree.

> They should not be breaking down their /32 for members to announce /48's.

Exactly.

[..]
> 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)

Exactly the filters that are applied around the world. Evidence enough
about this on the ipv6-ops at cluenet lists and otherwise just google for
Cloudflare + IPv6 for lots of fun stories.

> So... sorry SAGE, but you pooched this one.

Not yet. They just have to move to a different model: play LIR and
handle the paperwork for requesting PI /48s (or larger) for their
members; this instead of having a /32 and playing transit for their members.

Greets,
 Jeroen