[6bone] 2001:478:: as /48

[Jeroen Massar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

John Fraizer [mailto:tvo@enterzone.net] wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
> > I know who Bill is and what he does, but I don't understand
> > why in ARIN space a company uses it's *own* /32 as IX prefixes
> > and then suddenly expects it to be handled like the *dedicated*
> > IX prefixes of which there is one in each RIR.
> 
> How about because there was at least ONE v6 exchange point in the US
> running on address space from 2001:478:: BEFORE ARIN decided 
> to to make use of 2001:504:: for this purpose.

That is a plausible reason, but it still doesn't simply allow
anyone (okay Bill isn't just the next guy :) to just claim
that their *normal* TLA is a special IX prefix let alone that
it should be handled completely differently because of that reason.

First good step would be if the /32 would be announced if he
wanted those blocks to be reachable. I heared some rumors that
some ISP's already wanted to start creating filters based on
the allocations made by the RIR's thus really squashing anything
that is not allocated by them and keeping their tables clean.
Yes, they thus can't reach those filtered blocks, but that is
primarily the announcers fault as it basically isn't announcing
anything. Note that GRH doesn't count these blocks either.
Announce your full allocation or get filtered.
Maybe currently it is a bit harsh, but in a couple of years...

Quite fortunate that IPv6 is easy to renumber. Especially
in small networks like IX's ;)

(Hmmm I think that IX's where not covered in that last renumbering draft)

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/

iQA/AwUBP1eWVCmqKFIzPnwjEQLfAACgjXpXOO3DeuMhXwXS77AHLFgGzgkAoIcG
VRbUkeUCqBXDHwlg9UsK4DVs
=csjI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----