Subject: RE: v6 multihoming and route filters

From: "Azinger, Marla" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:54:54 -0700

Fred-  Thank you.  If it read as a threat, I'am sorry.  That isnt my intent by any means.  I meant it more like a factual progression.  Eventually someone with some solution will need to step forward.  After much debate on ppml it seemed as though many felt it should be resolved at IETF, but if its not then something needs to be decided somewhere else.  I hope thats more clear, because I am not the threatening type.  So sorry for any bad wording I may have sent forward.

I would really like to come to IETF and meet with the working group.  Thank you for asking.  I will work on trying to find funding.  My whole intent is to try to help the situation and help work on a solution.  Not create angst.

Thank you
Marla Azinger

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 12:40 AM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: Pekka Savola; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: v6 multihoming and route filters

My opinion - and please note that it is just that, not an edict of  
any kinds - is that in the final analysis it is not the IETF but  
operational reality that controls the issues here. If your customer  
will pay you enough to advertise a prefix that you don't own and to  
arrange corresponding ingress filter and route management with your  
upstream networks, you're going to do so regardless of what any RFC  
says, and it will in fact work because you will make the necessary  
business and routing arrangements to support it. That said, the level  
of effort involved will make the price fairly high, which means that  
you will not be doing a lot of this.

A "Best Current Practice" is not something with those business  
constraints, I should think.

By the way, threatening people is not a very convincing argument  
style. If you want something done, how about helping us do it, and  
honestly addressing the issues and concerns raised?

What may have applicability is Steve Deering's concept of  
Metropolitan Addressing, which it looks like someone needs to  
describe in an Internet Draft (it is in the slides at ftp:// 
ftp.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-online-proceedings/95jul/ 
presentations/allocation/deering.slides.ps). In short, his proposal  
was that a regional entity such as a civil community of some size  
gets a prefix and the ISPs that serve it agree to carry its routes  
such that a user can multihome within the community and outside it  
one routes to the community. This scales in the same way that  
Provider Addressing scales, with the caveats that each provider will  
have full /48 (or /56 I imagine) routes for community on the set of  
machines that serves it, and will need fairly explicit controls to  
ensure that the routing doesn't leak.

Would you like to come to the working group and discuss the issues  
with us in Montreal? I think that would be more productive than this  
discussion is being right now.

On Jun 29, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote:

> If the IETF V6ops WG doesn't give traction to this solution then  
> this WG will push this to become resolved in other conference  
> mediums.  The charter for IETF appears to involve this type of work  
> and to me appears to be the most appropriate place.
>
> There are a large number of people who would like to open filters  
> to /48 so we can freely multihome.  However, it is shut down  
> comments like this that scare many people off from participating in  
> discussion and using their voice to say what they would like to see  
> done with routing.  I may appear as one small voice, but there are  
> allot of unheard ones out there that agree with the /48 filter.
>
> Due to the lack of another solution for upstream providers to  
> provide multihoming, I see it as good solution.  I also believe  
> that this solution should be given serious consideration.  Weigh  
> out the pro's and con's.  Not having a solution for upstream  
> providers to provide multihoming is a very large con for not using  
> an available solution today. Especially since without our V6  
> capable networks, v6 wont be routed or used at all.
>
> As for swamp.  It won't be swamp if no other solution is created,  
> and as of today their is large conflict over what solution and if  
> that developed solution will even work.  So it may never become  
> swamp.  And if it does, I'm sure we can adapt and overcome.
>
> Thank you for your time
> Marla Azinger
> Frontier Communications
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:45 PM
> To: Azinger, Marla
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: v6 multihoming and route filters
>
>
> 	autolearn=ham version=3.1.2
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.2 (2006-05-25) on  
> otso.netcore.fi
> X-esp: ESP<17>=RBL:<22> SHA:<0> UHA:<0> SLS:<0> BAYES:<-5>  
> SenderID:<0> Spam
> 	Dictionary (TRU10):<0> Obscenities Dictionary (TRU10):<0>
> 	Scam Dictionary (TRU10):<0> Adult Dictionary (TRU10):<0>
> 	Embed HTML Dictionary (TRU10):<0> Float Dictionary
> 	(TRU10):<0> HTML Dictionary (TRU10):<0> URL Real-Time
> 	Signatures:<0> Spam Dictionary 2 (TRU10):<0>
> Return-Path: [email-masked]
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2006 04:45:44.0168 (UTC) FILETIME= 
> [E192EE80:01C69B36]
>
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Azinger, Marla wrote:
>> I ask the V6 WG to create a "best practice for multihoming" that can
>> be utilized today.  I ask that you please insert the solution to
>> filter at /48 thus allowing "upstream providers" to provide
>> multihoming to their customers.  This solution is needed to support
>> providers creating V6 networks and this solution can easily be added
>> into Marc's "IP V6 Routing Policy Guidelines" document.
>
> This is unlikely to get traction in the WG.  The initial draft was
> basically like that but was changed. Many people (myself included)
> opposed (and will oppose) recommeding opening filters up to /48.
>
> Let's not create a swamp out of v6 address space with more specific
> junk.
>
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings