[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

Azinger, Marla marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com
Mon Aug 28 12:24:37 EDT 2006

If Jason's response is the fact we are facing.  It would be good to add some lines into the proposal stating that the intent of this proposal is to be used by those facing these contstraints.  I say this only because I believe it is necessary to point out to people why they would or would not qualify for this type of allocation should this proposal pass.  I read the proposal as it is currently, and this doesnt seem to be clear enough to me.

Thank you
Frontier Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Jason Schiller
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:21 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com; ppml at arin.net; Jason Schiller
Subject: Re: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Pekka Savola wrote:

> I looked at the policy proposal, and the BGP re-convergence rationale 
> seems to be quite odd or outdated.  This is exactly the reason why 
> e.g., JunOS supports 'routing-options - resolution - rib FOO - import' 
> configuration.  We've used that ourselves for years now and there is 
> no issue with numbering the BGP sessions from the aggregate.  I'd 
> suspect Cisco supports similar configuration, or would easily to be 
> fixed to do so.

Not all vendors currently support this functionality.  Cisco only supports
this functionality in 12.2 T code.  It will take some time for this
functionality to show up in code that is useful to large service

I am also in the process of working with Cisco on a draft RFC to
encourage all vendors to support this functionality.

> Internal structure considerations also doesn't apply, as your 
> neighbors and customers can static-route to your internal block unless 
> you implement packet filtering at your borders.  Hence, I cannot see a 
> scenario where packet filtering wouldn't be sufficient.

Large scale ISPs require hardware based packet forwarding to due to the
high pps requirements in some cases as high as 6Mpps.  Currently not all
hardware deployed in all large ISPs has the capability to do line rate
packet filtering on all ingress interfaces. 


PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list