[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt
Le 05-09-20 à 00:51, Pekka Savola a écrit :
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Many folks don't see a problem w/ putting /48 junk etc. in the
routing tables, others do. This doc would/could then become a
political battleground in the v6 operations community..
Why don't publish what is agreeable as a minimum and then revise
it when more experience/more concensus/other tools/... is in.
You mean, after the routing table has already been irreversibly
polluted with junk, come back and review our past recommendations?
- no. you are missing the point.
- currently no recommendation. so /128 can fly.
- what is the number then, if not /48? I'm fine with better than /48,
but I thought that concensus will be difficult with a number less
than /48.
- and if you read the text, /48 is the minimum.
- maybe you can provide some text?
Sorry, I don't see how that could fly. If we don't recommend (or
at least describe the tradeoffs of) filtering at the allocation
boundaries, we'd better not produce a document at all because the
existance of such a document would be interpreted as the IETF's go-
ahead for putting the junk in the routing tables.
so you are proposing /32? Can you provide text?
- the uppercase keywords are inappropriate and should be removed
you meant because it is not a protocol?
Yes, and because this is not really an area where the IETF can make
strict requirements like "must"..
will do.
- the doc should probably make RFC2772 historic
I thought about that and I agree. I'm not sure when/how to put it.
Include in the document I guess?
Yes, and if you're using XML2RFC, do something like:
<rfc ipr="full3978" category="info" docName="draft-blanchet-v6ops-
routing-guidelines-01.txt" obsoletes="2772">
yeap, you guess it.
Marc.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings