RE: v6 multihoming and route filters

["Azinger, Marla" <marla_azinger@eli.net>]

Correct the IETF isn't the steward of address allocation.  And that is not what we are attempting to do with writing a Best Practice/Recommended Routing Procedure.  However, IETF is the steward of good routing principles.  If IETF sets a good set of principles on routing then Policy in RIR's can and should adjust policy allocation to reflect the suggested good routing principles.

Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]On
Behalf Of Pekka Savola
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:56 PM
To: Marc Blanchet
Cc: Christian Huitema; Iljitsch van Beijnum; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: v6 multihoming and route filters


On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> We should really think twice before asking the IETF to publish a 
>> position on this subject. Silence may well be the right approach.
>
> I think it is reasonable and good stewardship to define the longest prefix 
> possible in the global routing table (/48). Then anything smaller is subject 
> of policies and is probably more contentious to write.

Stewardship of who?  The IETF is not the steward of address 
allocations, so it has been rightfully argued that the IETF is not 
necessarily the steward of the operators of those allocations either.

As there is no consensus on what this should include, the most the 
IETF could do (IMHO) is describe the tradeoffs of different filtering 
schemes.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings