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

Re: draft-savola-multi6-asn-pi-01.txt

On 22-feb-04, at 17:08, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

I guess that first we should agree that really big sites won't use
multiaddressing and that they should obtain their own PI block.
Then we need to define the criteria to identify big sites
A finally then decide which addresses we should give them


IMHO, the first decision concerns the IETF
I am not so sure about the second and the third point, perhaps this
should concern the rirs, more than the ietf?


Agreed. We could make our lives very easy and just say that the current
filtering policy is up to the RIRs to handle. By that giving them also
one of the other keys to the multihoming problem - just break
aggregation. IMHO this is where we are today. But as most sites
actually do filter on allocation boundaries, we don't have an issue.

I am profoundly unsatisfied with the way the RIRs operate in this regard. For instance, they set a policy and then don't stick to it (see my rant at http://www.ipv4.bgpexpert.com/archive2003q4.php never mind the "ipv4" in the URL, I'm on the road and for some reason contacting my site using a hostname that has an IPv6 address doesn't work too well). Also, since anyone can participate in the policy decision making process, they're pretty much a special interest group in this regard and if there is enough pressure to make something happen, it will happen, regardless of whether it's a good idea.

If we want to break aggregation in a way that doesn't break scalability then I think we need to put out an RFC that tells people how to do it, so that it's actually usable (no point in doing this if network operators filter) and scalable. I think it can be done but Pekka's draft isn't the way.

Iljitsch