Re: v6 multihoming and route filters

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

On 5 jul 2006, at 18.02, Azinger, Marla wrote:

> I urge everyone to seriously consider that silence is not a good  
> answer.  This internet community needs, wants and is asking for  
> direction.  Whatever comes out of this discussion, verbalizing a  
> plan (be it with flaws or not) is better than no plan at all.   
> Silence has been a large part of this issue for some time now (with  
> various internet conference venues) and all this has done is create  
> confusion and finger pointing and thus total feeling of lost and  
> confused routing for developing V6 networks.
>
> Also, correct me if I'm wrong...but I didn't think the global  
> routing table should be seeing the "metropolitan aggregation"  
> setup.  So /48 filter shouldn't interfere with that kind of setup.

Where Is Sean Doran when you need him....


Sean (I think), was the first to start advocating string filtering on  
RIR allocation boundaries in IPv4. Randy at Verio followed and there  
where other Tier-1s as well. And life was good. Until downstreams  
started to move to Tier-1s that was receptacle for a) Money b) more  
specific prefixes. Sean at the IEPG meeting in Dec 2000 noted that  
the only scaleable solution to this is charging per prefix.

Randy and Sean had left, filtering fell away, money in the hand  
carried the day.

Route filtering is a policy set by the receiving provider. I don't  
believe there is anything here that the IETF ca say that will make a  
lasting impression.

- kurtis -