(6bone) Ingress filtering (was: asymmetric routing)

[Jan Oravec]

Michel,

> > If the customer has legitimate reason for sending alien traffic
> > (i.e. the space has been allocated to the customer by another
> > ISP), I see no reason why the ISP can't choose to allow it.
> 
> Can we enumerate the legitimate reasons for sending (accepting I
> think would be more appropriate) alien IPv6 PA traffic? In my mind,
> there are not any, and multihoming is NOT a legitimate reason. It's
> not like it is a bad idea, but requirering ISPs to transport the
> traffic of their competitors is not going to fly, no way.

The name 'traffic of their competitors' is confusing. Traffic was originated
by customer of ISP, not by ISP's competitor. The customer pays for transit,
so I don't see a reason for filtering.


> > Where a site chooses to allow a customer route traffic
> > asymmetrically, and otherwise implements RFC2827, I don't
> > understand the harm in allowing a multihoming solution based on
> > this. My instinct says that we'd lose a whole swathe of
> > potential solutions for arguably little benefit.
I agree..
> 
> The main harm is to the perceived revenue loss transporting other
> provider's traffic for free. A little bird has told me that most
> ISPs perceive it very strongly.

Again, it's not 'other provider's traffic', it's 'customer's traffic'.

The example: you have two post offices - A and B.
I want to send letter to someone. The post office A has better prices for
this destination, but I want to get response to my p.o.box at office B.
So I write return-address to 'B' on letter.
I pay some money to A for sending the letter. (and I pay some money to B for
my p.o.box)
Yes, they cannot check whether my 'B' address is regular or not.

The question is: Shall they reject delivery ?


Regards,

-- 
Jan Oravec
project coordinator
XS26 - 'Access to IPv6'  
jan.oravec@xs26.net