[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: v6 multihoming and route filters



On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Marc Blanchet wrote:
We should really think twice before asking the IETF to publish a position on this subject. Silence may well be the right approach.

I think it is reasonable and good stewardship to define the longest prefix possible in the global routing table (/48). Then anything smaller is subject of policies and is probably more contentious to write.

Stewardship of who? The IETF is not the steward of address allocations, so it has been rightfully argued that the IETF is not necessarily the steward of the operators of those allocations either.

As there is no consensus on what this should include, the most the IETF could do (IMHO) is describe the tradeoffs of different filtering schemes.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings