Hi,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:45:23AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > A strong message to that extent would be good :-) - coupled with
> > some recommendations how the conflicting goals ("I want all ISPs in
> > my neighbourhood to use optimal routing" vs. "someone in Asia might
> > not be interested in all in 5k routes for german municipality")
> > could be solved.
>
> ok, perhaps iljitsch can drop some text into a document so we can get
> a good read going and decide whether or not GROW wants to spend cycles
> on it?
That would be nice (as I see the problem but have no cycles to write
something useful).
> The problem exists in v4 and v6 and likely will persist in whatever
> comes next. It's directly related to routing operations work on the
> global intertubes, so it SEEMS like GROW is the 'right place' to
> discuss this... we can't go anywhere without text and a draft though.
It seems to be made worse by the fact that "this" can be done more
easily with IPv6, as you just can't get enough v4 space to subdivide
it into 5000 globally visible prefixes today - and those entities that
discover the "must have reliability! must have independence!" mantra
*now* will hit the v6 space... (given that I see this argument in this
dimension more often from governmental structures who have been hiding
behind single-IPv4-NAT so far).
> > I get that question fairly often from "largish networks", and so far,
> > I always have to answer "there is no routing police, so it's hard to
> > say what is allowed on the Internet and what not" - which is a humorous
> > way to say "there is no consensus here what consists 'good' and
> > 'responsible'"...
>
> I sort of don't want there to be 'routing police' though :( In a way
> this whole debate sounds like something a 'cisco training class' (or
> other example) would have covered, or should cover. I suppose it's
> fairly experiential at this point though.
I *do* want a routing police, in the sense that "the operator community"
agrees on what is considered "good" and "bad" behaviour, so end users
can ask someone (me, Iljitsch, ...) what to do in their network planning,
and we can tell them
- if you do *this*, it's "guaranteed" to work
- if you do *that*, you can be sure that you will be filtered
while today, I have to tell them
- well, today it is likely to work, but it might stop working tomorrow,
and there is no document that you could show around to those that
break your connectivity to show them that "you are doing the right thing"
ISPs develop their own guidelines on prefix-length filtering, some with
better understanding on what they want to achieve, others by using 10 year
old example documents for never-updated filters...
So, yes, guidance, please :-)
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
pgpxKV_Hzxekb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
