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

[Brian Johnson]

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Brian Johnson wrote:
<snip>
> > So I can announce subnets longer than /32 to my desire and anyone
can
> > filter as they desire.
> >
> > Sounds like the IPv4 status quo to me.
> 
> Almost, but with one important difference: you have to announce your
> covering aggregate, which makes it safe to filter more-specifics
> without
> affecting reachability.

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.

Since my last statement appears to be implied by IPv6 policy, but not
implied in IPv4 policy, I have no issues with the policy.

- Brian