current filtering too hostile for new prefixes?

[Rebecca L. Nitzan]

Hi:

While you're updating filter lists, add the new 6tap pTLA of 
3ffe:3900/24.

I think we need to filter on specific prefix, the problem is that
there is not enough usage/user-complaints to put the appropriate 
mechanisms in place to make sure the filter lists are up-to-date 
(like we all make damn sure work for ipv4).

One way to stay ahead of the ptla assignment game, is to add a few
subsequent number assignments in advance; doesn't hurt anything to 
do that.

			-- Becca


>Greetings!  I'm in charge of the new pTLA APAN-KR (3ffe:8040::/28)
>and have been trying to get stable routing during the past week. 
>
>What I realized is that many of the 6bone routers already have
>very strict filter rules in place, and route advertizement from
>my primary peer 6TAP didn't get through most of you.
>
>Could you please update your filters to permit this prefix
>accepted (and even redistributed)?
>
>This led me to also think about "what is a good filtering policy
>for 6bone routers?"
>
>This is my current configuration for import filter. (for Zebra
>and hopefully for Cisco too?)
>
>neighbor <PEER> prefix-list import in
>!
>ip prefix-list import seq 5 permit 3ffe::/16 le 28 ge 24
>ip prefix-list import seq 10 permit 2010::/16
>ip prefix-list import seq 99 deny any
>
>My intension is to be more forgiving for what I receive and
>to be more strict in what I'm sending out.  I have to list
>up every prefix I send out.
>
>Any comments?
>
>Thanks,
>-whchoi