[routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations

Hi Philip,

> Nick Hilliard said the following on 27/04/10 07:57 :
>> On 26/04/2010 13:32, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> we tell people ipv6 allows multi-homing.
>> 
>> Do we?   Which particular vapour are you referring to here?
> 
> I suppose the question Rob and I are trying to address is, do we want to
> encourage ISPs to take their /32 and announce all 65536 /48s in an
> effort to do some kind of amazing traffic engineering act by juggling
> all 65k prefixes at once?
> 
> Or do we want to encourage ISPs to think aggregation, and only leak the
> subprefixes that they need to leak to support their multihoming
> customers and traffic engineering requirements?

I want to emphasize that this came up because of LIRs that had multiple distinct networks that they couldn't announce (ok, nothing is impossible, but it would be awkward)  their PA /32 prefix in one part. Possible solutions were to give them multiple /32 prefixes or to write a recommendation that a bit of de-aggregation should be permitted. At the time the latter was felt to be a better solution :)

It can of course be abused for traffic engineering...

> Anyway, the doc would just be recommendations, along the lines of
> RIPE-399 being no more than recommendations. If folks think we are
> wasting our time putting together an IPv6 equivalent, let us know, and
> we can stop here. ;-)

The routing stuff was taken out of the address policies to be moved to a separate routing recommendations document. I think this is important, so please continue :-)

Thanks,
Sander