Re: [RAM] IPv6 /32 to /48 prefixes and Tree-Bitmap FIB speed

Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc> Fri, 20 July 2007 08:21 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IBnk6-00056V-SU; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:21:42 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IBnk5-00056P-WC for ram@iab.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:21:42 -0400
Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IBnk5-0000fH-Hh for ram@iab.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:21:41 -0400
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB2CA0D5; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:21:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:21:41 -0400
X-Sasl-enc: FBbhxS9Tj6LRi9XxhZlspZms/IUpI5w9xF7cc2tCF8TP 1184919699
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (cpe-72-228-47-177.nycap.res.rr.com [72.228.47.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAE92BE1; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:21:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [RAM] IPv6 /32 to /48 prefixes and Tree-Bitmap FIB speed
From: Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <46A01BD7.80802@firstpr.com.au>
References: <469F5757.9040700@firstpr.com.au> <BD76EE31-CA0F-4A96-B825-7254F84717C0@muada.com> <46A01BD7.80802@firstpr.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:21:21 +0200
Message-Id: <1184919681.19192.48.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Cc: ram@iab.org
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 12:20 +1000, Robin Whittle wrote:
> Thanks for answering my questions about /48s and for pointing me
> to the guidelines which some or many people follow - Gert
> Doering's page:
> 
>   http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
> 

In the absence of scalable IDR and route-certificates you'll also find
people using more strict filters in an attempt to achieve operational
stability. Such filters aim to keep the maximum numbers of prefixes
within the capacity of available hardware. Thus, if a registry allocates
blocks out of e.g. a /23 only a small fraction of that /23 may initially
be accepted, especially if it is used for PI /48s. The current v6
routing-table may be small, but I'm sure attitudes will change as more
people realise the potential impact on their infrastructure as it
becomes increasingly common to operate dual-stack networks.

A practical approach to the process of building v6 filters would be:

1. Look at IANA's assignments to RIRs

2. Examine policies for each block to check if they are sub-divided into
smaller blocks with individual allocation policies.

3. Obtain prefix-length-recommendations from the RIRs' routing policies
for each address-block.

4. Examine (download&process) the records of the RIR's allocations to
LIRs and end-users to determine the last allocation (highest number) in
each block.  

This, combined with a wish to allow some extra prefix-bits for shorter
AS-paths (traffic-engineering) defines a "baseline" for prefix-filters.
Note: It's not unusual to use a similar approach for ipv4 -- either for
operational filters or in tools used to analyse various aspects of the
DFZ. 

(The task would of course be much simpler if this information was
available in a consistent/unified/standardised format from all parties
involved ;))


//per


_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram