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

Re: v6 multihoming and route filters

My opinion - and please note that it is just that, not an edict of any kinds - is that in the final analysis it is not the IETF but operational reality that controls the issues here. If your customer will pay you enough to advertise a prefix that you don't own and to arrange corresponding ingress filter and route management with your upstream networks, you're going to do so regardless of what any RFC says, and it will in fact work because you will make the necessary business and routing arrangements to support it. That said, the level of effort involved will make the price fairly high, which means that you will not be doing a lot of this.
A "Best Current Practice" is not something with those business constraints, I should think.
By the way, threatening people is not a very convincing argument style. If you want something done, how about helping us do it, and honestly addressing the issues and concerns raised?
What may have applicability is Steve Deering's concept of Metropolitan Addressing, which it looks like someone needs to describe in an Internet Draft (it is in the slides at ftp:// ftp.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-online-proceedings/95jul/ presentations/allocation/deering.slides.ps). In short, his proposal was that a regional entity such as a civil community of some size gets a prefix and the ISPs that serve it agree to carry its routes such that a user can multihome within the community and outside it one routes to the community. This scales in the same way that Provider Addressing scales, with the caveats that each provider will have full /48 (or /56 I imagine) routes for community on the set of machines that serves it, and will need fairly explicit controls to ensure that the routing doesn't leak.
Would you like to come to the working group and discuss the issues with us in Montreal? I think that would be more productive than this discussion is being right now. 

On Jun 29, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
If the IETF V6ops WG doesn't give traction to this solution then this WG will push this to become resolved in other conference mediums. The charter for IETF appears to involve this type of work and to me appears to be the most appropriate place.
There are a large number of people who would like to open filters to /48 so we can freely multihome. However, it is shut down comments like this that scare many people off from participating in discussion and using their voice to say what they would like to see done with routing. I may appear as one small voice, but there are allot of unheard ones out there that agree with the /48 filter.
Due to the lack of another solution for upstream providers to provide multihoming, I see it as good solution. I also believe that this solution should be given serious consideration. Weigh out the pro's and con's. Not having a solution for upstream providers to provide multihoming is a very large con for not using an available solution today. Especially since without our V6 capable networks, v6 wont be routed or used at all.
As for swamp. It won't be swamp if no other solution is created, and as of today their is large conflict over what solution and if that developed solution will even work. So it may never become swamp. And if it does, I'm sure we can adapt and overcome. 

Thank you for your time
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:45 PM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: v6 multihoming and route filters


	autolearn=ham version=3.1.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.2 (2006-05-25) on otso.netcore.fi X-esp: ESP<17>=RBL:<22> SHA:<0> UHA:<0> SLS:<0> BAYES:<-5> SenderID:<0> Spam 
	Dictionary (TRU10):<0> Obscenities Dictionary (TRU10):<0>
	Scam Dictionary (TRU10):<0> Adult Dictionary (TRU10):<0>
	Embed HTML Dictionary (TRU10):<0> Float Dictionary
	(TRU10):<0> HTML Dictionary (TRU10):<0> URL Real-Time
	Signatures:<0> Spam Dictionary 2 (TRU10):<0>
Return-Path: pekkas@netcore.fi
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2006 04:45:44.0168 (UTC) FILETIME= [E192EE80:01C69B36] 

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Azinger, Marla wrote:

I ask the V6 WG to create a "best practice for multihoming" that can
be utilized today.  I ask that you please insert the solution to
filter at /48 thus allowing "upstream providers" to provide
multihoming to their customers.  This solution is needed to support
providers creating V6 networks and this solution can easily be added
into Marc's "IP V6 Routing Policy Guidelines" document.


This is unlikely to get traction in the WG.  The initial draft was
basically like that but was changed. Many people (myself included)
opposed (and will oppose) recommeding opening filters up to /48.

Let's not create a swamp out of v6 address space with more specific
junk.

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