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... ;-(