On 2/13/14, 16:44 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
Hi Mike, I like David's way of handling the issue that you raise. By saying that "... it is acceptable to filter this prefix at an administrative boundary, if an operator desires. Further, it should be made clear it is not acceptable to advertise this prefix to the Global Internet."
Glad to be of help. :)
I'm interested in your comment here regarding the IXP situation. Would 184.108.40.206 being advertised onto an IXP by a willing participant be something that you'd see a problem with? It would certainly be possible to place wording into the policy which places an expectation that operators should filter this at their AS boundary. I'm interested in whether people think this would unreasonably restrict the benefit of some fo the use cases of this prefix.
I'm not sure you want to completely prescribe an answer here, it should be a local decision for the community or operator of an IXP. Maybe just suggest that IXPs should consider local policy on the issue, especially for peering with the IXP's route server if their is one. For a direct peering across the exchange it should be up to the two peers to decide.
Maybe add a recommendation of ask first as a general rule.Also, if this turns out to work really well, I'm skeptical of that by the way, and it becomes really popular I could see this as a potential service an IXP could provide its members. But, it is way premature to recommend anything like that.
Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean at internetnz dot net dot nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
-- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn dot edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================