Clement Cavadore wrote:
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 ?
The RIPE membership clearly voted for the latter. Become LIR and get your piece of IPv6.
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).
It does, but note that the more specific might have a bad path which can cause your prefix to be semi-blacklisted because of this.
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.
That is a description of what you want, not what problem it exactly tries to solve. Thus what is the case that you are trying to solve and in which way is current policy inadequate and how do you propose it could be solved in a better way and why? Greets, Jeroen