[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: v6 multihoming and route filters
with this draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines draft, we could:
a) do not mention anything about maximum unicast prefix length
b) mention that the very maximum unicast prefix length is /48, but
should be smaller and refer to right documents/policies
c) go into debate on what would be the maximum prefix length, /47, /
46, /44, 40, /36, /32, /...
first (personal) draft was b) and I still believe it is the best we
can do for now than don't say anything like a). if ARIN policy is
implemented as it seems to be, we will end up with b). b) does not
harm anyone, it is just stating the bare minimum.
so to me, b) should be back in the draft.
Marc.
Le 06-06-29 à 00:45, Pekka Savola a écrit :
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
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006. http://www.ipv6book.ca