On Tue, 13 May 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
John Fraizer wrote:
I don't think that an exception should be made for microallocations at all. To paraphrase what ARIN says, there is no guarantee that address space that they assign will be globally routable.
You should note that that also goes for the rest of the allocations. 69/8 in IPv4 anyone ? :)
The alloocations I have seen have problems out of 69/8 were not micro-allocations. They were /19's and /18's. I'm sure that there are a few /20's in there with a token /24 perhaps but, the ones I have knowledge of were _real_ allocations and not micro-allocations. The issue of reachability of those allocations was brought on NOT by people being filtered based on prefix length but because so many people were using outdated BOGON filters - filters that would have even blocked 69.0.0.0/8 had it been announced.
If an ISP decides to filter it's their choice, it is also their network and their money (and isn't that what it is all about?)
How about this: If an ISP sees what a pile of crap the IPv4 tables have become and filters responsibly in v6, despite non-responsible allocations made by ARIN, I would tend to look at it as a responsible community member telling an irresponsible community member that we don't want IPv6 SWAMP space and the routing table bloat that it will lead to.
That's why it's also good that Gert notified us of this change. Let's hope rpslng will come soon and that everybody in IPv6 uses it correctly, that will be a big step forward for changes like these.
And I agree. It was nice that Gert notified us of the change. I am still not opening up my filters for those prefixes though. --- John Fraizer | High-Security Datacenter Services | President | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 | EnterZone, Inc | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation | http://www.enterzone.net/ | Network Consulting Services |