Re: v6 multihoming and route filters

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Pekka Savola wrote:
> 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.

See RFC 4177 section 5.1:
  "This approach generally meets all the goals for multi-homing
   approaches with one notable exception: scaleability."

    Brian