[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt
Note: the next rev of this doc (if there is one) should maybe be
forwarded for comments on the email@example.com list.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Durand, Alain wrote:
How does this differ from RFC2772? Do you feel a need to update it?
RFC2772 includes guidelines for *6bone*. This is offering guidelines
for more than that. In that light, if we feel the IETF is the right
place to give guidance on this, updating is certainly needed.
As already noted in the IETF/ipv6 lists, it's an open question to what
degree and how strong guidance the IETF should (or even could) give to
It seems that if the IETF would want to pursue this work, the
discussion would need to be recast in the manner "You should
considering doing [this]. This is why it may or may not make sense".
As we learned from the DNS configuration debates at DNSOP (though the
situation is a bit difficult), getting to a consensus could be very
A couple of specific comments:
- the global unicast address recommendations are (IMHO) way too lax.
Even some part of 'strict' filters in
http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html could be stricter.
In any case, that URL should also be referred. This is an example of
the case why getting CONSENSUS on a document like this is going to be
very difficult. Many folks don't see a problem w/ putting /48 junk
etc. in the routing tables, others do. This doc would/could then
become a political battleground in the v6 operations community..
- the uppercase keywords are inappropriate and should be removed
- the doc should probably make RFC2772 historic
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings