Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.....
I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the minimum IPv6 advertisement on BGP. My concern is that I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to get our /48 allocation from our RIR, I figured out I would it would be best for us to break down the /48 into smaller chunks (i.e /56s) and farm it out to our sites since a single /48 will be very big for our single site.
Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.....
I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the
minimum IPv6 advertisement on BGP. My concern is that I am running a
network that is operating on multiple sites and currently rolling >out
our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to get our /48 allocation from
our RIR, I figured out I would it would be best for us to break down the
/48 into smaller chunks (i.e /56s) and farm it out to our sites since a
single /48 will be very big for our single site.
Any advise will be very much appreciated.
Regards,
--
-nathan
Minimum announcement for IPv6 as I recall is /48. Some providers might
accept less for their networks.
From: Nathanael C. Cariaga [mailto:nccariaga@stluke.com.ph]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:50 AM
To: NANOG Mailing List
Subject: minimum IPv6 announcement size
Hi,
Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.....
I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the
minimum IPv6 advertisement on BGP. My concern is that I am running a
network that is operating on multiple sites and currently rolling >out
our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to get our /48 allocation from
our RIR, I figured out I would it would be best for us to break down the
/48 into smaller chunks (i.e /56s) and farm it out to our sites since a
single /48 will be very big for our single site.
Your RIR ought to make a minimum allocation based on the number of sites
you need to deploy to, so something shorter than a /48. clearly you
should aim for the highest acheiveable aggregation but that's not always
possible.
the fact that it is "large for your site" isn't germain to the
discussion of what's the minimally accepted size prefix.
Any advise will be very much appreciated.
Regards,
--
-nathan
Minimum announcement for IPv6 as I recall is /48. Some providers might
accept less for their networks.
I've seen providers accept longer but not propigate them. we apply
filters at the /48 level, That appears to be sufficiently common that it
confers herd immunity to shorter prefixes.
I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
get our /48 allocation from our RIR
excuse, but which rir handed out a /48 under which policy?
Many if not most networks set a limit at /48. Verizon was the last
player of consequence to filter at /32, and they moved to /48 a couple
years ago. A few also try to limit advertisements within ISP space
nearer to /32. Usually not at /32, but a /48 announcement within space
allocated to an ISP won't necessarily be honored.
If you have distinct networks with distinct routing policies (or can
make a reasonable claim to such) and your RIR is ARIN, you can request
a block size large enough to provide a /48 to each distinct network. A
/44 or whatever. Search through the ARIN NRPM for details. I don't
know about the other RIRs; someone in your region (Asia Pacific?) will
know.
I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough for our organization to use for at least the next 5-10 years assuming that this can be farmed out to our multiple sites. What makes this complicated for us is that we are operating on a multiple sites (geographically) with each site is doing multi-homing and having a /48 in each site would be very big waste of IP resources.
I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough for
our organization to use for at least the next 5-10 years assuming that
this can be farmed out to our multiple sites. What makes this
complicated for us is that we are operating on a multiple sites
(geographically) with each site is doing multi-homing and having a /48
in each site would be very big waste of IP resources.
It's not waste and you should adjust the expectations somewhat.
With a /48 You typically have enough bits to do hierachical addressing
plans, prefix delegation and other things which you may need but are not
currently planning for.
IPv6 was designed with an expectation of having /48 per geographical site and this is perfectly fine.
I have a /48 at home.
What is more of a concern is to do aggregation in the DFZ, if every size got itself a /48 PI and announced it in the DFZ then the routing system would not be very happy...
I believe you can get multiple /48 from APNIC. You will not be evaluated
under HD ratio but as discrete network (no iBGP running among them). Here
it is the policy [http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.5.2]
> I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
> currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
> get our /48 allocation from our RIR
excuse, but which rir handed out a /48 under which policy?
Any of them?
% Information related to '2001:67c:d8::/48'
inet6num: 2001:67c:d8::/48
netname: SR-V6
descr: Sveriges Radio AB
country: SE
org: ORG-SR18-RIPE
admin-c: MN1334-RIPE
admin-c: LEW3-RIPE
tech-c: MN1334-RIPE
tech-c: LEW3-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PI
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-END-MNT
mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-END-MNT
mnt-by: SR-MNT
mnt-routes: SR-MNT
mnt-domains: SR-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough
for our organization to use for at least the next 5-10 years
assuming that this can be farmed out to our multiple sites. What
makes this complicated for us is that we are operating on a multiple
sites (geographically) with each site is doing multi-homing and
having a /48 in each site would be very big waste of IP resources.
If you've got island networks w/o links between you SHOULD request a /48 per site.
