Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6-00.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

(FWIW, I think this version of the document is better.  The draft 
still has recommendations what should be filtered and I'm not sure if 
that's necessary, but those are mostly non-contentious prefixes..)

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Peter Sherbin wrote:
> 1) in 2.9 Default Route has only a statement about what ::/0 is. Any other Address
> Type seems to have a guidance on how to treat it. Should Default Route have an
> advertising statement similar to draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines-01.txt?

I'd say that section 2.9 should be removed.  Default route is IMHO not 
a special address(-prefix) in any way.  How you want to treat it 
differs in each network both in IGP and BGP, so perhaps saying nothing 
is the right thing to do.

2.10 is somewhat incorrect on Multicast:

   ff00::/8 are multicast addresses [RFC4291].  They have a 4 bits scope
   in the address field.  Only addresses having the 'E' value in the
   scope field are of global scope, all other values are local or
   reserved.  Therefore, only ffXe:: routes may be advertised outside a
   site, where X may be any value.

'site-scope' multicast has the scope value '5' and the rest between 6 
through D are unassigned except for '7' (organization-local scope).

The document defines:

        scopes labeled "(unassigned)" are available for administrators
        to define additional multicast regions.

Therefore I think it would be an end run to say only 'E' should be 
acceptable because administrators are welcome to use anything higher 
than '5' in scopes greater than a site.

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