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

Re: v6 multihoming and route filters



Pekka Savola wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

Except for the people who were now filtered with no prior warning and no recourse. The IETF can't and shouldn't want to mandate how people run their networks, but things work a lot better if there is consensus about the parameters within which everyone applies their own judgement.


You seem to have the assumption that it is possible to come to a consensus (with a reasonable time and energy investment) that satisfies the stakeholders.

I'm almost certain it won't be possible, hence I'm rather skeptical about wasting time in trying. So, I'm advocating that we should aim for a trade-off document instead if we really want to do something here and if we by some miracle happen to get to consensus, even better.. :-)

You may be right, but my reasoning is: the most common IPv4 practice (filter at /24) doesn't translate to IPv6, everyone doing their own thing is suboptimal, and there doesn't seem to be another forum to decide on this, ergo the IETF should step up.


Yes, the IETF has been known of its exercises in futility in the past so one more time won't hurt... ;-(

I suspect that the IETF could conceivably produce a document
saying "if you build a network of size X and with a range of filtering
policies between Y and Z, we think the following might be the impact
on route table growth and convergence times." But that might make
a better SIGCOMM paper than an RFC.

    Brian