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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> "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.

That's a bit hard to reconcile with the firm intention since the beginning
to contain the size of the DFZ for IPv6 by avoiding longer prefixes like
the plague. 

> 
> > 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.

But they need to be strongly discouraged. If that is no longer agreed, please
let me know so that we can stop looking for a multihoming solution that
doesn't generate one prefix per site.

   Brian