Announcing 2003::/16 during tests of "shipworm"

[Bill Manning]

	Random hijacking of prefixes is a practice that should
	be discouraged.  This sets a dangerous example.


On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:04:48AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote:
> At 08:37 AM 12/7/2001 -0500, Robert J. Rockell wrote:
> >6bone=testbed
> >
> >testbed=announce routes that allow people to Test.
> >
> >I see no reason to not allow *ANY* prefix that has a legit purpose for
> >testing on the 6bone.  This should in no way break any existing asignments.
> 
> I do agree with this. The 6bone is a test network, and as such would not be 
> doing a proper job if we didn't allow new ideas (and prefixes) to be used 
> for testing, as long as they don't mess up others (which Rob covers below).
> 
> A point that should be re-emphasized about the 6bone is that it does have a 
> need to interconnect to the "production" IPv6 Internet. A 
> non-interconnected set of networks is not the Internet as we all know and 
> love it, and the v6 Internet is no exception.
> 
> Many/most/all of the open v6 peering points around the world do, in fact, 
> connect 3FFE and 2001 prefix-using networks together. Some of these 
> networks even have both 3FFE and 2001 prefixes allocated to them. We 
> continue to encourage such peerings and trust that properly managed and 
> operated peerings protect bad things from happening (which is what RFC2772 
> is about, but read on below).
> 
> 
> >Unless I hear something from Working-Group chairs, I will be appending this
> >prefix to my filters today.
> >P.S. If any of you have this route in your table now, you aren't abiding by
> >rfc2772 for filtering anyhow, so I don't see where the room to complain
> >about it exists.  If you filter strictly, you would not see this route
> >in your RIB...
> 
> RFC2772 is the 6bone's current operational guidelines, both for routing and 
> overall participation. Rob and a few others of us are now doing a rewrite 
> to bring it up to date, but it is still in force and very relevant.
> 
> As for the filtering rules in RFC2772, I presume Rob refers to the 
> parenthetical note in RFC2772 3.1:
> 
> "(Also, it is each pTLA, pNLA, and end-site's responsibility to not only 
> filter their own BGP4+ sessions appropriately to peers, but to filter 
> routes coming from peers as well, and to only allow those routes that fit 
> the aggregation model, and do not cause operational problems)."
> 
> The reader should also look at the rest of section 3, as well as sections 4 
> and 9, for more general guidance for routing policy and other filtering.
> 
> 
> As for SHIPWORM's status in ngtrans, you should read the ngtrans project 
> status page (I do keep it quite up to date):
> 
> <http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans/ngtrans_project-status.html#SHIPWORM>
> 
> which currently states:
> 
> shipworm-02 published 26Sep01, last call for forwarding closes 12Oct01
> shipworm-03 published 16Oct01 to answer last call comments
>              forwarded to IESG 18Oct01
>              IESG evaluating nat traversal issues before proceeding
> 
> The last communications on this with Randy Bush, our AD, are:
> 
> >From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
> >To: Bob Fink <fink@es.net>
> >Cc: Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>,
> >         IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat@ietf.org>,
> >         Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@sun.com>, Tony Hain <tony@tndh.net>,
> >         NGtrans List <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
> >Subject: (ngtrans) Re: forwarding SHIPWORM for PS
> >Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:11:40 -0700
> >
> > > SHIPWORM-02 finished ngtrans WG last call with comments that were resolved
> > > in the new -03 draft:
> > >
> > > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-03.txt>
> > >
> > > Please process this draft as a candidate for PS.
> >
> >the iab has raised a general architectural issue regarding nat traversal
> >that has clear relevance to this draft, midcom, and so forth.  i am trying
> >to understand it more before progressing.  please stay tuned.
> >
> >randy
> 
> and:
> 
> >From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
> >To: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
> >Cc: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@sun.com>,
> >     Tony Hain <tony@tndh.net>,
> >     Bob Fink <fink@es.net>,
> >     Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> >Subject: Re: shipworm progress?
> >Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:43:15 -0800
> >
> > > When can we expect the IESG to issue a last call?
> >
> >no sooner than the architectural issues that were raised with the midcom
> >etc. work are resolved.
> >
> >randy
> 
> 
> We, the ngtrans chairs, do want SHIPWORM to progress into production, but a 
> Shipworm IPv6 service prefix
> is not likely to be assigned by IANA until the IESG moves the draft forward 
> (Randy can correct me if I am wrong). Meanwhile, testing is needed and 
> underway. Any choice of interim prefix is almost certainly likely to be 
> different than one assigned for production, so I don't particularly care 
> what is used.
> 
> If a 3FFE-based prefix is temporarily requested, I would support allocating 
> it for further testing, but don't think it matters at this stage given the 
> test use of 2003 for this is already underway.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bob