Re: v6 multihoming and route filters

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 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.

You seem to have the assumption that it is possible to come to a 
consensus (with a reasonable time and energy investment) that 
satisfies the stakeholders.

I'm almost certain it won't be possible, hence I'm rather skeptical 
about wasting time in trying.  So, I'm advocating that we should aim 
for a trade-off document instead if we really want to do something 
here and if we by some miracle happen to get to consensus, even 
better.. :-)

> 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.

Yes, the IETF has been known of its exercises in futility in the 
past so one more time won't hurt... ;-(

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