[arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 route aggregation

[David Farmer]

On 15 Oct 2009 Scott Leibrand wrote:

> David Farmer wrote:
...
> > So lets think about applying this to the IPv6 policies on the table 
> > right now;
> >
> > 2008-3 Community Networks IPv6 Assignment - It is probably kind of 
> > late in the process for this, but maybe it would be a good idea for 
> > these assignments to come out of separate documented range.
> 
> Do I recall correctly that ARIN staff said they would do so, even if not 
> specifically required by policy?

Not sure, but we should probably ask staff in Dearborn.

> > 2009-5 IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks - Should those allocations come out 
> > of a separate documented range?
> 
> No.  These allocations are identical to other General Purpose 
> allocations, except that an organization with multiple networks may have 
> one for each network.

I can see that argument, but since these organizations will 
have multiple networks, I will already receive multiple route 
entries from them.  Therefore, I might be less incline to take 
longer prefixes from them in addition to the multiple networks I 
will need to take from them already.  So, maybe we should 
segregate them from other networks, just a thought.

Also, I thought I heard some say that 2009-5 might not be 
necessary if we remove the requirement to announce an 
aggregate.  Is that a better way to deal with this issue?  Or, if 
we allow IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks can we keep the 
requirement to announce an aggregate for all allocations?

Should multi-site end-users organizations be able to get more 
than one /48 and announce them separately?  If not, why not.

> > 2009-7 Open Access To IPv6 - One of the things we are doing is 
> > removing the requirement to advertise a singe aggregate of an 
> > allocation. Rather than eliminating the restriction all together, it 
> > might be better from a routing policy point of view to create a 
> > separate documented range without the requirement to announce an 
> > aggregate.  Maybe it is not unreasonable for this to have an extra fee 
> > associated with an allocation out of this block too?  (Fees are not 
> > directly a policy issue, but it could be a recommendation that the 
> > Board consider an extra fee in this case.) I have heard some valid 
> > reasons for some networks to not announce an aggregate of there IPv6 
> > allocation, but I still believe most network can and should announce 
> > an aggregate.  Maybe we shouldn't through the baby out with the bath 
> > water on this one.  Creating a range for allocations without the 
> > requirement for announcing an aggregate would allow operators to have 
> > a routing policy to require it for the vast majority that can and 
> > should announce an aggregate.
> 
> This seems like unnecessary complexity to me.

Yes, this would add complexity, but so does having networks 
that are not willing or able to announce an aggregate.  

I'm willing to be a little flexible for the people that have real 
serious technical issues and can't announce an aggregate.  
But maybe they should have a little extra complexity.  Because 
this does create complexity for everyone else, to allow them 
the option to not announce an aggregate.  

Maybe another option would be to require a SWIP for any 
longer prefixes announced and that a "No Aggregate" tag be 
put on their Allocation in ARIN's Database.  And, I still think 
segregating them might be a good idea.

If service providers can get a /32 allocation and announce part 
of it without announcing the aggregate, they why shouldn't end-
users be able to do the same thing with a /48?  If not, why not.

> > Comments please, and please bend my ear in Dearborn next week on this 
> > issue too.
> >
> 
> Looking forward to it!
> 
> -Scott



===============================================
David Farmer                                      Email:farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota		       Phone: 612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE		       Cell: 612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029	       FAX: 612-626-1818
===============================================