[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

Azinger, Marla marla_azinger at eli.net
Wed Jun 28 15:51:10 EDT 2006

In response to Marc and his much needed document, I posted the following to the V6 ops WG discussion email list.

Hello-  I have reviewed Marc Blanchets document on IP V6 Routing Policy Guidelines Filename:  draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt

I am concerned that the current draft does not include detailed routing guidelines for multihoming.  This document does not include guidelines for multihoming in the current V6 routing framework. V6 can be used identically like V4 to do multihoming and this is what I would like to do with V6. 

I currently have customers asking for this ability and none of them wish to wait for solutions that may not be fully developed for a couple more years.  Also, my customers don't want to get PI space (even under the new V6 PI policy), so this means I need to give them a /48 and set up multihoming.  However, as all policy and practices sit right now, everyone filters on a /32.

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. 

Thank you for your time
Marla Azinger
IP Engineering
Frontier Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Marc Blanchet
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 5:47 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

  I've submitted the first version of following document more than a  
year ago as an individual submission to IETF. This came from earlier  
discussion on a need of this kind of document for providers/ 
enterprises who start IPv6 deployment and also to obsolete the 6bone  
routing guidelines document which people still were referring to.
The document has been accepted as v6ops wg document back in Dallas  
(march 2006). Thomas Narten told me that I should look at arin-ppml  
since there was some similarity with a arin-ppml thread.  Please have  
a look at this not-yet-finished document.  It will be discussed  
during IETF Montréal v6ops wg meeting.
BTW, the first version of it (under draft-blanchet-v6ops-...) had  
words on prefix length to advertise but was  pushed back by one  
person, so I remove it then. However, I do believe some wording  
should be back there on prefix length and related issues. Please  
comment to me or v6ops mailing list.

From: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt
Date : 	19 juin 2006 15:50:02 HAE
To : 	  i-d-announce at ietf.org
Cc : 	  v6ops at ops.ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the  

	Title		: IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines
	Author(s)	: M. Blanchet
	Filename	: draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt
	Pages		: 8
	Date		: 2006-6-19
    Guidelines on how to manage IPv6 routes are needed for operators of
    networks, either providers or enterprises.  This document is a
    followup on RFC2772 work but for the production IPv6 Internet.
    RFC2772 becomes historic.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:


Le 06-04-25 à 17:16, Thomas Narten a écrit :

> "Tony Li" <tli at tropos.com> writes:
>>> What I see frustrating here is that everyone agrees we need
>>> some sort of "internet community agreement" that addresses V6
>>> routing.  I hear alot of people asking for this, including
>>> myself.  Yet I dont hear any specific forum stepping forward
>>> to help facilitate this need.
>> What you're asking for is a "routing and addressing architecture".
>> Currently, it's really the purview of the IETF, except that they've
>> basically abdicated the role.  This creates a vacuum, which, as  
>> you note
>> cries out to be filled.  There are multiple ways to make progress  
>> here,
>> but my favorite is for ARIN to simply push the problem back to the  
>> and insist on a sensible and scalable solution.
> I think that what people want has a lot to do with operations and
> operational practices, an area the IETF struggles with at times. There
> is v6ops WG in the IETF:
>     http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html
> Reading the charter, my takes is that what I think I'm hearing people
> calling for (best practices on things like route filters, is
> deaggration allowed or not and under what conditions, etc., etc.)
> would be in-scope there.
> Maybe it's time to approach that group (and the ADs), see if there is
> a willingness to take on such work in the IETF. What they will want to
> see is a critical mass of folk agreeing on the work that needs to be
> done (i.e., what kind of document and what is in it) and assurance
> that there are enough volunteers to do the actual work.  Even if the
> work is "officially" housed there, there is no reason why the work
> couldn't also be discussed in the various RIR and operations
> groups.
> I think the IETF would be as good a place as any to try and do this
> work.  (And I'm willing to help make this happen if people think this
> is worth pursuing.)
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006. http://www.ipv6book.ca

PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list