[routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations

====BT: Hi,

	the 20th email on this topic ...

	May I suggest an "horrible" idea ? here it is in 2 points :

	#1- Keep the recommendation as "/32 prefix length is recommended to exchange 
routes in BGP peerings"

	#2- Accept on a "case by case situation" some (whatever the length ?) 
exceptions well justified (as we have today for IXPs, name root servers, ...)

	This way, there is no acceptable reason to deaggregate massively. It remains 
the common rule to advertise /32 prefixes (or shorter).

	The main points of discussion are now :

	#A- what an acceptable exception could be (or how it can be defined) ?

	#B- which maximum length the prefix of this exception must be (/48, longer or 
shorter) ?

   These were my pence, feel free to comment ... gently, since I'm just back 
from vacations ;)

   +Bernard T.
---

João Damas a écrit :
>
> On 28 Apr 2010, at 01:32, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>>> and how many years did it take to clean up the ripe docco on route
>>>> flap dampening recommendations?
>>> Worse than that, there still are a significant subset of newcomers who
>>> switch on their favourite vendor recommended values for flap damping
>>> because they read old versions of their vendor documentation. :-(
>>
>> moral of story: we need to be careful what we recommend
>>
>
> indeed!
>
>> i can see an isp refusing to route a multi-homed content site because
>> ripe docco 666 says no prefix longer than /36.
>>
>
> that's why a number, any prefix length, would be wrong, imho and one should stick to the principles and give people an idea of costs of the options (to everyone). Basically create an atmosphere that makes normal people feel this is not a decision without impact.
>
> Joao
> PS: do you want to have that RIPE doc # reserved in advance for this doc? ;)