[ppml] Effects of explosive routing table growth on ISP behavior

[Scott Leibrand]

Brian Johnson wrote:
> This is true today; I can break-up my ARIN allocation and advertise
> longer prefixes down to a point where I will lose some network
> reachability. Actually, we should remove the language from the IPv6
> policy that indicates anything about advertising the "covering
> aggregate" unless we are willing to cede that all assignments will
> remain purely hierarchical in nature. So anyone who multi-homes will
> have to get an assignment from a RIR to maintain reachability.
>   

I don't think that's true.  Today, anything you advertise in IPv4 down 
to a /24 will be accepted more or less by everyone.  However, that's 
only a convenience for optimal TE.  In order to just maintain 
reachability, all you really need is for your upstreams (all your 
transit providers and all their transit providers) to accept your 
deaggregated routes from you and from each other.  The rest of the world 
need only accept the RIR-assignment-size covering aggregate, route the 
traffic toward one of your transit providers, and then let the 
more-specifics take over when they hand the traffic off to them.

-Scott