[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: v6 multihoming and route filters
On 7-jul-2006, at 17:14, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Where Is Sean Doran when you need him....
Probably stuck at some airport... :-( (-:
Sean (I think), was the first to start advocating string filtering
on RIR allocation boundaries in IPv4. Randy at Verio followed and
there where other Tier-1s as well. And life was good.
Except for the people who were now filtered with no prior warning and
no recourse. The IETF can't and shouldn't want to mandate how people
run their networks, but things work a lot better if there is
consensus about the parameters within which everyone applies their
own judgement.
Sean at the IEPG meeting in Dec 2000 noted that the only scaleable
solution to this is charging per prefix.
Actually, this doesn't scale at all. I don't know how many networks
that run defaultless there are, and how many of those do so out of
necessity, but tracking all of them down and paying all of them some
money (how do you decide how much each one gets?) is certainly NOT
scalable.
Route filtering is a policy set by the receiving provider. I don't
believe there is anything here that the IETF ca say that will make
a lasting impression.
You may be right, but my reasoning is: the most common IPv4 practice
(filter at /24) doesn't translate to IPv6, everyone doing their own
thing is suboptimal, and there doesn't seem to be another forum to
decide on this, ergo the IETF should step up.