On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 19:22 +0000, Carlos Friacas wrote:
The biggest problem is the state of IPv6 deployment itself :-( But some transit providers start to ask about route6 objects, just like they do about route object (i.e. see rpslng). At least mine, does :-)
That's exactly what I assumed, so I asked my LIR to create a route6 object for the /47 I announce to him.
A lot of operators likely discard anything longer than /32 in the RIR allocation space.
Probably. Most people doesn't follow (or is aware) about: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
Perhaps the effect would be different if the RIRs would start to maintain these recommendations themselves.......
It would sure be better. I saw a /42 announced by RIPE, which is part of another LIR's /32 sTLA. Although there is no route6: object for it, I guess most of IPv6-aware networks do care about reaching RIPE's IPv6 servers. Seeing that announcement gave me guidelines regarding BCP in doing IPv6 multihoming without being LIR. Florian Weimer wrote:
ARIN offers IPv6 PI space, perhaps you can get a /48 prefix which is supposed to be globally routable from them.
Well, since I am not in ARIN-land, it wouldn't be really normal for me to ask for an ARIN-PIv6. Let's assume RIPE will find a good solution for people in my case :). Regards, -- Clément Cavadore