Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines - Draft

From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:16:25 +0100

This document is a good read and is well to the point.

Some notes:

1) Ch2.3.  Link-scoped Unicast
Depending how one looks at the definition of 'advertised' the reading
may be confusing. (BGP could have two next-hops included, where-of
one is the link-local address). It is not advertised as prefix, but is 
advertised
as next-hop. A simple rewording may help here.

2) 2.6.  Default Route
I do not agree with the fact that :: may only be advertised in the core? Some
networks do behave in the hot-potata manner and have the perception
they are doing that for legitimate reasons.

To add to these two comments it could be nice to have a look also at:
http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html

it has now nice references on the bottom of the page for which some may
have sufficient impact to have a note in the draft. (for example the Micro
allocations from ARIN)

Kind Regards,
G/

At 17:27 22/03/2006 +0100, Bonness, Olaf wrote:
>Hi Marc
>I've recently read your draft and found it very helpful from a provider 
>point of view. I think this kind of documents help the ISPs to make their 
>homework and give them a good basis for their decission making and 
>operation. In this direction I would like to see your draft adopted as a 
>WG document.
>
>A minor remark to the 6to4 prefix. In our opinion a 6to4 prefix (that I've 
>received from another peer) could be advertised as well if I want to give 
>the peer 6to4 transit through my network. (The shortest path to the 6to4 
>gateway will than be determined through the routing.)
>
>So far my 2 cents
>         Olaf