IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Different view on RH0: it is good to take out unmaintained networks

"James Jun" <james@towardex.com> Mon, 14 May 2007 10:32 UTC

Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnXqn-0006pQ-IW; Mon, 14 May 2007 06:32:21 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnXql-0006dr-Ce for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 06:32:19 -0400
Received: from mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com ([216.93.240.35]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnXqk-0002HY-6h for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 06:32:19 -0400
Received: by mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com (TowardEX ESMTP 3.5_DAKN, from userid 1143) id 0B5EA6D43C; Mon, 14 May 2007 06:32:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hcmczombvvlcmo (ip-216-93-252-30.twdx.net [216.93.252.30]) by mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com (TowardEX ESMTP 3.5_DAKN) with ESMTP id 8922E6D42B; Mon, 14 May 2007 06:32:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Jun <james@towardex.com>
To: 'Jeroen Massar' <jeroen@unfix.org>, 'IPv6 Ops list' <ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de>, 'IETF IPv6 Mailing List' <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <4648395B.6010602@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 06:36:23 -0400
Message-ID: <002901c79613$b7fdb130$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2826
In-Reply-To: <4648395B.6010602@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com>
Thread-Index: AceWEoBVMQ88tOrHTry0JqXOhsAN4QAALu/g
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on scylla.towardex.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Cc:
Subject: RE: Different view on RH0: it is good to take out unmaintained networks
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

> 
> Maybe that brings to their attention that doing uRPF is actually a good
> thing as is being specified in BCP38 (BCP stands for Best Common
> Practices, but clearly a lot of networks don't take it in common).

Another factor though is, many major router vendors still don't support
BCP38 or especially uRPF for that matter on all of their platforms in proper
fashion.

It's not a good thing when people ask you to do uRPF, and best your router
can do for IPv6 is only strict-mode uRPF which doesn't work too well with
multihomed customers or on peering and transit interfaces.  :)


james


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email