[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Distributing site-wide RFC 3484 policy






On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, David Malone wrote:

On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 02:58:29AM +0900, itojun@itojun.org wrote:
	so you know that "local optimization != overall success".
	then why are you spending so much time trying to make incomplete
	local optimization?

One could ask similar questions of BGP. Despite that, people find
BGP a useful tool, and while not perfect, it seems to remain bearable
for many network operators.

Personally, I'd find a mechanism for distributing address selection
policy useful. I have a number of sites that have both 6to4 and
native/tunnelled connectivity where the latter has uRPF applied.
I'd like our hosts to use all native addressing, unless they are
talking to a 6to4 host. Unfortunately, not all hosts have the right
default policy. If I could distribute a policy, they I could arrange
for everyone to have the right policy.

It's true that I probably can't get produce a policy to do the right
thing all the time, but that makes address selection no worse than
the routing protocols in use today. I guess your point may be that
we shouldn't have address selection at all, but I fear it may be
too late for that discussion?

I fully support argument of David. I think RFC3484 is important piece to define IPv6 preference or IPv4 preference. At least I currently use this purpose... Setting up address selection has to be made somehow manageable: this is an important requirements from a network manager point of view. It is nightmare to manage mass of machines with arbitrary address selection policy....

Best Regards,

Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F  4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882