[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: v6 multihoming and route filters
On 5-jul-2006, at 18:47, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
actually, i think that Christian is dead-on. the IETF should not
presume to know or dictate "best practices" for routing - esp. when
they have no idea what may be my drivers. the best/only thing they
should do is describe -HOW- it is done and -WHAT- are the
boundaries for the choices ...
This argument would be considerably more persuasive if there was some
other group picking up the slack. The RIRs explicitly reject any
responsibility for routing, although by creating address policies
they impose important limits on what can be done here. Groups like
NANOG, APRICOT and RIPE (as opposed to the RIPE NCC) are in the
business of spreading best practices, but not in the business of
creating them.
And since the IETF is (hopefully) the place where internet routing is
best understood an the IETF has historically always had an
operational component (hence the existence of this very working
group), I think the IETF can't shy away from at the very least
discouraging harmful practices, and preferably also pointing out
tradeoffs that exist between different choices and recommend best
practices if such can be identified.
Making value judgements in standards is nearly never a good idea.
What is a standard other than a big fat value judgement?