[ppml] 2005-1 and/or Multi6

[Edward Lewis]

At 23:56 +0200 4/13/05, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:16AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
>>  > or would this policy just create SWAMPv6?
>>
>>  This policy would create SWAMPv6. SWAMPv6 will be more difficult to
>>  clean than SWAMPv4, for two reasons:
>
>Can anyone please define "swamp"? What does the collection of PI
>prefixes differ in compared to the collection of PA aggregate prefixes
>other than probably prefix length?

Taking an amaturish stab at an answer:

An "overly specific" prefix of address space that is spread across 
multiple RIRs.  (Or maybe NIR/LIR.)

E.g., 192/8 in IPv4, as opposed to say, 69/8.  (OTOH, 0/0 is not a 
swamp because it's not specific.)

Implications - for DNS, having to coordinate multiple registries 
information into one zone.  For routing, not being able to aggregate 
"efficiently".  For other purposes - not being able to easily 
determine what policies may be attacked to the space.

>"Swamp" was the organisational chaos left from the early IPv4 phase.
>I don't see how a /32 set aside by each RIR for /48 PI prefixes can be
>called "swamp" unless you define all PI users as "mud". :-)

For one example of IPv6 swamping, some IPv6 was allocated to ARIN 
before the emergence of LACNIC and then allocated to organizations 
that are now in the LACNIC region.  (Uses my definition of "swamp.")

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.