[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks
packetgrrl at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 19:09:47 EST 2010
I see what you're saying here but the reality for me was that for close to a
year a very large ISP didn't pay attention to ARIN's allocation of parts of
184.108.40.206/8. They were big and I was little and so they won at least for a
time. Their customers weren't complaining and so they had no need to accept
my more specific route. Those of us with parts of 220.127.116.11/8 complained but
since none of us were paying that large ISP we were ignored.
I could see this happening again if for example the ARIN community decided
on a policy that caused the global routing table to explode. Then ISPs
would most likely filter to keep their routers from crashing and those super
specific blocks wouldn't be routable.
ARIN has no control over filtering/routing policies. At a recent NANOG
there was a panel where ISPs in no uncertain terms told the community that
they do not want ARIN policies to include anything about routing policy. I
believe at this point that most of the RIRs have removed routing criteria
from their IPv6 policies for that very reason.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 3:37 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Barbara Roseman
> <barbara.roseman at icann.org> wrote:
> > I think there's a subtle but important distinction
> > that's being lost, and that Cathy and Marla tried to clarify.
> Hi Barbara,
> If I understood the distinction that Cathy and Marla drew, the point
> they're making is that nowhere does ARIN say what routes an ISP has to
> carry. ARIN doesn't even say what routes an ISP ought to carry. Nor is
> there any other legal obligation which compels ISPs to carry any
> particular routes for addresses ARIN allocates. Like Verizon has done
> with IPv6 /48's, ISPs are welcome to disregard any routes they don't
> like for any reason at all. That they rarely exercise that choice
> means nothing more sinister than that routing the address ARIN
> allocates is good for business.
> Do you feel that's a reasonable re-statement of what they said? I'd
> hate to be obtuse about it, so if I'm missing the their point please
> help me understand.
> I think I understand the claim, but I dispute it.
> Cause and effect is no less potent for being indirect. The
> practicality of altering BGP routing activity based on a second feed
> of assignments matched to assignment classes is doubtful. Even if it
> could be done from a technical perspective, ARIN doesn't publish the
> criteria by which each registrant qualified for their addresses, so
> such a feed has no source for its content.
> Realistically, functionally, technically, the tools I as an operator
> have for implementing routing policy can only paint with a broad
> brush. Discard small announcements in this /8. Depreference that one.
> Unless ARIN classifies registrants in a manner consistent with those
> tools, my choices for routing policy devolve to two basic options:
> accept routes announcing ARIN IP addresses or don't.
> In other words, ARIN sets the routing policy for North America. Not
> explicitly, cleanly and openly, but haphazardly, indirectly and
> The unspoken and unintentional yet cumulative net effect of ARIN's
> allocation practices make ISPs a mob-style offer they can't refuse:
> carry all of the addresses we approve or carry none of them and lose
> your business.
> At this point we're stuck with that for IPv4. The addresses are
> already deployed. With some mild adjustments to our allocation
> practices, we don't have to be stuck with that effect for IPv6.
> Bill Herrin
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML