New RIPE allocations outside 2001::/16 - filter update time!

[Daniel Roesen]

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 01:21:31PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >But I see the point that people are leaking more-specifics accidentally.
> >Those can be contacted and educated though. Not an easy task, granted.
> 
> Yeah, but the key point is that "more specifics multihoming" is 
> in many cases more or less indistinguishable from acciental leaking, 
> traffic engineering for various (or no) reasons, and all the other 
> stuff that ends up in the routing tables.

Agreed, this is what I meant with "not an easy task" - not easy to
identify, not easy to remedy.

> Looking at how unsuccessful we've been at avoiding or cleaning swamps 
> in v4, it may be better to avoid going there with v6 in the first 
> place.

Yup, that's why we need a specific address range for PI, so people can
actually start filtering on minimum allocation boundaries if they really
desire without killing desperate pseudo-multihomers.

Until there is a clear picture where you can safely filter what, I'm
inclined to recommend to be liberal. What outdated, unmaintained
filters do to "unusual" legit prefixes can be seen every day. I still
find ASN filtering 2001:5000::/21 or others because of unmaintained
strict anti-bogon filters.


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0