Re: v6 multihoming and route filters

[bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com]

> >Such advice might also mention the
> >	fallicy of a "global routing table"
> 
> What fallicy?

	where is the "global routing table"?  How is it defined?
	In zero cases that I am aware of, can any given node running
	IP reach any other arbitrary node running IP.

	I posit that this "global routing table" is a myth.  The -ONLY- 
	thing that matters to me are are the entries in -MY- routers memory.  
	How they get there is -MY- choice and I get to dictate what is placed 
	there.  What you have in -YOUR- routers is your business.

> >	i guess that in the end, if the IETF codifies this, we are
> >	back to classfull routing and hardcoding address boundaries...
> >	which turns back years of attempts to  remove arbitrary bounds
> >	checking that was implemented in IPv4 in the early days ...
> 
> The lesson was poorly learned because through some back doors we're  
> now in the situation where having /64 subnets is pretty much mandatory.
> 
> But we were talking about inter-domain routing. Filtering on prefix  
> size is a very useful technique that does indeed have unfortunate  
> side effects. But if you want to get rid of this technique you'll  
> have to come up with something to replace it... Not filtering is not  
> a reasonable long-term strategy.
> 

	I never said not filtering was an option.  Proxy aggregation is viable
	as well.

	IF this draft is to have any credibility, the only choice will be to
	describe what prefix size filtering is, what the ramifications are, and
	what the "unfortunate side effects" are.  As an ION, one might indicate
	that given the implementation constraints of 2006, an operator might 
	consider the merits of selecting certain prefix sizes, if they choose
	to use prefix-sized filters in their routers.  Two distinct documents.

	IMHO of course.  The IETF will do what/as it pleases. 

--bill