[AusNOG] another ipv6 Q

Thu Jul 3 16:06:05 EST 2014

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 ; www.eintellegonetworks.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: 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> 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)
>
>  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 ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
>
> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: 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> 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
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing listAusNOG at lists.ausnog.nethttp://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> 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/20140703/6f23b901/attachment.html>