Re: IPv6 policy at LACNIC( was: RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

"marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es> writes:

> >
> > - IPv6 policy:
> >
> >    "Announce a single block to the Internet"
> >
> >   as long as there is no other multihoming solution for end users and/or
> >   resellers, it seems to be generally accepted practice to announce
> >   /40s or even /48s out of an ISPs PA block as more specific.  The
> >   policy shouldn't try to enforce things that either can't be enforced,
> >   or will seriously harm acceptance of IPv6 (due to multihoming customers
> >   not changing to v6).

> Well, curent policy states as the c condition to initial allocation the
> following:

> "c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it
>       will assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its
>       single aggregated address allocation; and"

> So, the announce a sinlge block requirement is not introduced by this policy
> proposal, but it was already there in the policy.

The intention of the wording "by advertising that connectivity through
its single aggregated address allocation; and" is to ensure that all
the addresses covered by the RIR allocation are reachable via a single
route based on the (single) aggregate allocation. In particular, it
was intended to ensure that addresses assigned out of that range not
_require_ multiple longer prefixes be injected into the global routing
system in order for the idividual sites be reachable.

This does _not_ mean that longer prefixes cannot or should not be
injected into the routing system. The point is that it should not be
_required_ that the routing system accept such longer prefixes in
order to get ubiquitous reachability.

> Two question, then:
> 1- Do you think that there is difference among the policy and the proposal
> because the way it is stated?
> 2- In case there is no difference, do you think we should also change the
> policy and remove the requirement of a singla announcement?

The requirement for a single announcement should be there, but it
should not also imply that longer (more-specific) advertisements are
not allowed.

Thomas