Kevin Loch wrote: > Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >> >>> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix >>> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes: >>> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16 >>> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48. >>> >>> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we >>> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless >>> network that >>> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out >>> of room >>> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses. >> >> >> I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care >> about IPv6 TE. > > I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start" > policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about > half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being > TE routes. > > Speaking of TE, it's going to be interesting to see how we deal with > that. We can't expect everyone to accept any /48 that gets announced. > I'm still waiting for the first time someone blows up the Internet > by announcing all 65536 /48's in their /32. I'm amazed it hasn't > happened yet. > > Stricter use of the IRR might help if there wasn't rampant auto > proxy registering going on. RPKI may be the answer since that > can't be proxy-registered. That would at least mitigate router > bugs and carelessness. The issue of what intentional TE routes > are seen as "acceptable" is another issue. >
I would love to see TE die a painful death. Maybe someone announcing 65536 routes will bring it to a swift end. ~Seth
