[6bone] pTLA request NDSOFTWARE - review closes 23 October 2002

[Nicolas DEFFAYET]

On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 15:24, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote:
> > 
> > A lot of peers filter our /32 because it's not a pTLA. 
> > We want a pTLA for can announce without any problems our network, don't
> > break the IPv6 aggregation and be independant of a upstream (we don't
> > want be down because our upstream is down). 
> 
> The danger is that all companies will want this independence and for the
> same reason demand a pTLA/SubTLA.  It's certainly true for our university,
> which has a /48.  Given we offer IPv6 remote access, should we be allowed
> a /32 to offer static /48 "site" IPv6 prefixes to any university member 
> wanting connectivity?

All ISP/company/project who provide IPs to another ISP/company/project
and have many upstream MUST have a pTLA/sTLA.

In http://www.6bone.net/6bone_pTLA_list.html, a lot of pTLA aren't used
or are used only for a /48 and/or have only one upstream.

An exemple: MOTOROLA-LABS, have only one upstream. Do you think that
they need a pTLA ? If their upstream is down, this pTLA is not anymore
announced. MOTOROLA-LABS don't provide IPs and a /48 is enough for their
activity...

NDSoftware provide IPs to another ISP/company/project and have many
upstream...

> Of course part of the problem is the lack of progress of the multi6 WG,
> albeit a non-trivial problem to be working on :)   The "classic" IPv6
> solution for our university is to take two /48's from different providers,
> and for all clients to have two global addresses, but the client-side
> support for handling the multiple addressing is yet to be resolved.

It's a lot of do-it-yourself.
It's not a good solution, because a lot of software need only an IP...

Best Regards,

Nicolas DEFFAYET