On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 23:35 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There is one problem with this setup though. If 'good/fast' providers filter your more specific, then most likely only 'bad/slow' providers will transit it to others, who will use the more specific and thus the bad/slow providers. As such announcing a more specific can cause that your prefix becomes broken due to the better ISP's filtering the more specific out.
I agree on that. But except having a statically routed IP space by a LIR (or becoming LIR and ask for a /32, which would surely be overkill, or trying to ask ARIN for PIv6), is there any other proper solutions ? Hopefully, as you said, if a more specific prefix is filtered somewhere, it could still be routed through its LIR's /32 announcement (if the LIR knows the more specific route, or course).
What exactly is "your case"?
I simply run a small network without being LIR (having PI in IPv4 land), and would like to have IPv6 services available in it. First, I got a /48 statically routed in my network by the LIR who owns the parent /32. Then, I got the consecutive /48 routed to my network, so I chose to announce a /47, in order to have multihoming and peering intercos, in the future, using my ASN, like I do in IPv4. I guess it's always the same debate: What are the pros and cons regarding PIv6 (or call it "globally routable smaller prefix than /32"). Regards, -- Clément Cavadore